9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is left with pending issues despite they are raised before the AO / CIT (A) through different proceedings. It is also a fact that the assessee is not a company placed with experts advising in matters of litigations. Assessee is only an individual which must be appreciated in matters of this kind. Thus assessee cannot be considered as non- vigilant person in the matter of exercising his rights. Therefore, it is a fit case for condonation of delay - direct the CIT (A) to admit the appeal. In favour of assessee. - I.T.A. NO.6979/M/2010, I.T.A. NO.6980/M/2010 - - - Dated:- 1-5-2013 - Shri D. Karunakara Rao And Shri Sanjay Garg,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Nitish S. Joshi For the Respondent : Shri Jitendra Yadav ORDER Per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f long term capital gains @ 10% and, therefore, the appellant could not have filed an appeal against the observation in the assessment order that such income ought to be assessed @ 20%. 6. The CIT (A) ought to have held that the long term capital gain arising on transfer of bonds / debentures should be taxed @ 10%." 3. Grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are elaborative and argumentative. The core issue that has to be adjudicated by us revolves around the decision of the CIT (A) in rejecting the condonation request of the appeal filed before the CIT (A) with the delay of 307 days, which is undisputed. Relevant facts and the dates, which are important for adjudicating the appeal, are assessment order dated 29.12.2008 was receiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finally filed before the first appellate authority. AO's failure to attend to the rectification application constitute a reasonable ground for condonation of the delay before the CIT (A) which was not properly appreciated by the CIT (A) as evident from the impugned order dated 29.7.2010. 4. On the other hand, Ld DR argued vehemently stating that the assessee does not deserve lenient approach which is often done in the matters of condonation of delay. Ld DR relied on the contents of the reasoning given by the CIT (A) in the impugned order. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue and find that there is no dispute on the quantum appeal as well as the dates of the proceedings cited above. In this regard, we p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal before us are allowed. 6. Ex consequenti, since the delay is condoned, we direct the CIT (A) admit the appeal. On finding that the CIT (A) has not adjudicated the issues raised before him, we set aside the issues relating to the merits of the case to the files of the CIT (A) for adjudication of the same in accordance with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act for passing a speaking order on each of the issues. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. I.T.A. NO.6980/M/2010 (AY: 2006-2007) 8. This appeal filed by the assessee on 7.10.2010 is against the order of the CIT (A)-8, Mumbai dated 29.7.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
