9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who had cancelled the reopening of assessment and, consequently, had annulled the assessment order. Against the order of learned CIT(A), the Revenue was before the ITAT. The ITAT, vide order dated 15th February, 2006 in ITA Nos.4787 to 4789/Del/2003, upheld the order of learned CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. On appeal by the Revenue, Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court remitted the matter to the ITAT with the following finding:- "These appeals are in respect of the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94 and arise out of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 15.02.2006 in respect of the ITA Nos.4788 to 4789/Del/2003. The impugned order is a common order which also includes the assessment year 1991-92. The appeal against the assessment year 1991-92 being ITA no.1563/2006 has been dismissed by this Court today itself by a separate order. 2. However, we are taking a different approach in respect of the present appeal because there appears to be a mistake in Tribunal's order with regard to the two years in question in these appeals. In paragraph No.8 of the impugned order, it has been recorded that :- "It is not disputed that in all the three as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned CIT(A) dated 4th July, 2003 which was the common order for AY 1991-92, 1992-93 & 1993-94. From a perusal of learned CIT(A)'s order, it is evident that he discussed the facts in detail relating to AY 1991-92 and held that the original assessment was completed under Section 143(3). All the material facts necessary for assessment were duly disclosed by the assessee. Therefore, the reopening of assessment after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year was bad in law in view of the proviso to Section 147. Thereafter, on the last page, he just mentioned one line "The facts and circumstances are similar for asstt. year 92-93 and 93-94 and, therefore, on a careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned assessments are annulled." Now, it is evident that the facts of AY 1991-92 are different than that of AY 1992-93 & 1993-94. In AY 1991-92, original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and, therefore, proviso to Section 147 was applicable because the assessment was reopened after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. So far as the assessment years 1992-93 & 1993-94 are concerned, the original assessment was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctions may be condoned. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following decisions:- (i) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others - [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC). (ii) Auto Centre Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others - [2005] 278 ITR 291 (All). (iii) N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy - [1998] 7 SCC 123 (SC). 8. Learned DR, on the other hand, stated that even if it is accepted that during original proceedings before the ITAT the assessee did not get adequate opportunity of filing the cross-objections because his appeals were decided ex parte, the assessee ought to have filed the cross-objections immediately after the pronouncement of the order by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. That the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court pronounced the order on 21st August, 2008 and the cross- objections were filed by the assessee on 14th October, 2011. Thus, there was a delay of more than three years in filing the cross- objections after the order of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. No satisfactory explanation has been given for such delay of more than three years. He, therefore, submitted that the delay in filing of the cross-objections should not be condoned. 9. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression 'sufficient cause' employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice - that being the life- purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that: 1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this ; when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming addition in sum of Rs.5,14,275 on account of cricket earnings. The findings returned by the Revenue authorities are misconceived and erroneous, and must be quashed, with directions of appropriate relief." C.O. No.345/Del/2011:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the authorities below erred in holding that the benefit of CBDT's Circular No.447 dated 22.01.1986 was not available to the assessee. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming addition in sum of Rs.20,19,293 on account of cricket earnings. The findings returned by the Revenue authorities are misconceived and erroneous, and must be quashed, with directions of appropriate relief." 16. At the time of hearing before us, it is stated by the learned counsel that the Assessing Officer had denied the exemption available as per CBDT Circular No.447 dated 22.01.1986 on the only ground that the assessee is professional cricketer and not an amateur cricketer. While doing so, he also relied upon the decision of another cricketer Shri Ajay Jadeja. It is stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee as being amateur or professional cricketer after considering the order of tribunal vide ITA Nos.4451/Del/2004 & 4452/Del/2004. On careful reading of the above mentioned order it has been noticed that the Hon'ble ITAT has not given any specific direction with regard to the applicability of instruction number 1432 of CBDT in the case of Ajay Jadeja but has restored the matter back to the AO. However, the Hon'ble ITAT has relied upon the decision of Bangalore bench of ITAT in the case of G.R. Vishwnath (29 ITD 142) and the decision of Delhi bench of ITAT in the case of Sri Manoj Prabhakar in ITA No.564 & others/Del/2004 wherein it was held that there was no material in the possession of the AO to arrive at a finding that the assessee was a professional cricketer not entitled for the benefit of circular no.447 dated 22.01.1986. 3.4 Based on the opinion held by Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Sh. Ajay Jadeja wherein it is held that 'the assessee was entitled for exemption in respect of award money as per circular number 447 dated 22.01.1986', the same treatment is being done in the present case of Sh. Kapil Dev. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.18,24,198/- which was treated as taxable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
