9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VERSUS MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS [ 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT] - Thus in the interest of justice the delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) needs to be condoned. - ITA Nos. 78 to 80/Ind/2019 - - - Dated:- 20-2-2020 - Kul Bharat, Judicial Member And Manish Borad, Accountant Member For the Assessee : S/Shri Ashish Goyal N.D. Patwa, ARs For the Revenue : Shri R.S. Ambedkar, Sr.DR ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, AM The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15 are directed against the various order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-13 (in short Ld. CIT(A) ), Ahmedabad on 02.05.2018 which are arising out of the order u/s 143(3)/271(1)(c) 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the Act ) on 16.12.2016, 20.12.2016 22.05.2017 framed by ITO (Intl. Txn.), Bhopal(in short Ld. A.O). 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- Appeal No.ITA/78/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 On the facts and the circumstances of the case:- 1. That the assessment u/s 143(3) is invalid, without jurisdiction, barred by limitation, illegal and liable to be quashed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 234B, which is debtable in nature (Tax Effect 10,45,950/-) 5. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) was unjustified in not considering the fact that if the interest u/s 234A 234B is not charged while passing the assessment order it means that assessing officer had waived the interest (Tax Effect :10,45,950/-) 6. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining interest u/s 234A to the tune of ₹ 3,55,623/- (Tax Effect: 3,55,623/-) 7. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining interest u/s 234B to the tune of ₹ 6,90,327/- (Tax Effect: 6,90,327/-) The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. 3. As the issues raised in these appeals are common and pertains to the same assessee they were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of brevity and convenience. 4. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the impugned orders Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee s appeals for delay in filing of appeal. The delay was for 491 days. Though the assessee requested for condoning the delay giving reasonable and sufficient cause which prevented the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 2395 of 2008 (SC) 7. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of Ld. CIT(A) and opposed to the request made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. 8. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the judgments placed and relied before us. The issue commonly raised by the assessee in Ground No. 2 3 of the instant appeals are against the findings of Ld. CIT(A) not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him and dismissing the appeals in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. 9. As regards delay in filing the appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has given reasons in the written submissions which intends to explain that the assessee being a non resident was dependent on his counsel for the legal remedies available in the Act against the additions made by the Ld. A.O. Since the assessee was residing outside India the assessment order was served to the watchman thereafter handed over to the counsel for taking necessary action. However the counsel failed to take any action during the time permitted for filing the appeal which caused the delay. Assessee w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e matter is fought on merits and in accordance with law rather than to dispose it of on such technicalities and that too at the threshold. Both sides had tried to argue the matter on merits but we refrain ourselves from touching the merits of the matter as that can best be done by the Executing Court which had denied an opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence and to prove the issues so formulated. 3 In our opinion, ends of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned orders and matter is remitted to the Executing Court to consider and dispose of appellant's objections filed under Order 21 Rule 90 of CPC on merits and in accordance with law, at an early date. It is pertinent to point out that unless malafides are writ large on the conduct of the party, generally as a normal 1 rule, delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it on such technalities. 2 Apart from the above, appellant would not have gained in any manner whatsoever, by not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. It is also worth noticing that delay was also not that huge, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
