IQROOP SINGH SEKHON,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, CHANDIGARH

In the present appeal assessee has raised the following grounds:

The appeal is time barred by 375 days. The assessee has submitted that he did not received the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and he came to know about disposal of his appeal only when the notice of the TRO, Chandigarh was received on 22/12/2013. It was argued that the appeal has been filed immediately after it came to the knowledge of the assessee about the disposal and after obtaining a copy of the order on 04/03/2014 from the office of the Ld. CIT(A).

In view of doing substantial justice as there is a sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal, based on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MST Katiji & Othrs 167 ITR 471 where it has been held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non deliberate delay, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

As gauzed from the records that the case was fixed for hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) on 08/06/2012 on which date the adjournment was sought by the assessee for 11/07/2012. Further the case was fixed for hearing on 22/11/2012 by serving a valid notice. Again the case was adjourned for 28/11/2012, and on 31/12/2012 since neither written submissions have been received nor adjournment application has been filed the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an order under section 250(6) based on the material available before him.

During the hearing before us the assessee in at Sr. no. 2 has taken the ground that no proper and reasonable opportunity was granted. The assessee has also filed additional evidences which are not been submitted before the lower authorities and argued that the additional evidences are required for adjudicating the ground. It was prayed that these documents were not available with the assessee at the time of assessment because of the serious illness.

Having gone through the additional evidences, we find that the evidences goes to the root cause of the dispute. Relying on the judgments in the case of Tek Ram Vs CIT 262 CTR 118(Supreme Court) and Mukta Metal Works 336 ITR 555 (P&H), the additional evidences are being admitted.

The Ld. DR argued that based on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Tolla Ram Hasso Mal 153 Taxmann 532(M.P) (2006), and also on the rationale in the case of Manish Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 928/2001 (Delhi High Court) and submitted that the assessee has been constantly ignoring the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and in case additional evidences, the Revenue should get an opportunity to examine the same.

We have heard the arguments of both the parties and find that interest of justice would be met if the case is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to examine the authenticity and examination of the documents and to obtain report from assessing officer as deemed fit while adjudicating. We also direct the assessee will not abuse the opportunity provided to him and comply without fail to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A).

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.