Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. N.r.mahesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 03.08.2010 Coram :- THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLAandTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.619 to 624 of 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai. ..Appellant in all the appeals. vs. N.R.Mahesh,Prop. M/s.N.S.R.Exports,41, T.T.K.Road, Chennai-18. ..Respondent in all the appeals. Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras 'A' Bench, dated 01.05.2009 passed in I.T.A.Nos.1546, 1547,1548, 1549, 1550 and 1551/Mds/2008. Appeal against the Order of theCommissioenr of Income Tax (Appeals)-XII, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034 made in ITA.Nos.310 to 315/05-06 dated 24.03.2008 and against theAssessment Order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CircleXV, Chennai-34 in GIR.No./P.A.No.AAPP.No.764B dated 31.03.2005 forthe Assessment Years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. For Appellant : Mr.Patty B. Jeganathan Standing Counsel for Income-tax Common Judgment (Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH,J.) In view of the common issues involved in all the appeals and theparties being the same, these appeals have been taken up together fordisposal. 2. The assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) challenging the order of assessment for the assessmentyears 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. The said appeals have been filed withthe condonation of delay applications seeking to condone the delay of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 265, 82, 82, 265, 82 and 82 days respectively. The assessee filedapplications before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) statingthat the appeals could not be filed against the orders passed by theAssessing Officer within the prescribed time in view of the fact thatthe assessment orders have been misplaced and the assessee was madeto change the authorised representative viz., Chartered Accountant.It is further stated that, in view of the above said facts, therecords will have to be received from the erstwhile authorisedrepresentative to the present one, there was delay in filing theappeals. The assessee further contended that inasmuch as substantialissues have been raised in the appeals, the same will have to beheard. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) hasdismissed the appeals by holding that the reasons assigned for thedelay cannot be accepted. 3. Challenging the same, the assessee filed appeals before theTribunal and the Tribunal in turn has allowed the appeals. TheRevenue has filed the present appeals challenging the orders passedby the Tribunal by raising the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in law by condoningthe delay in filing the appeals? 2. Whether there was sufficient cause forcondoning the delay in filing especially in theabsence of any documentary proof provided by theassessee?" 4. Mr.Patty B.Jeganathan, learned standing counsel for theappellant submitted that the assessee was not diligent enough infiling the appeals within the time. Learned counsel furthersubmitted that the assessee was adopting delaying tactics andtherefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in exercising thejurisdiction in favour of the assessee. Learned counsel alsosubmitted that even before the Tribunal, after filing the appeals,the assessee was not represented. Hence the learned counselsubmitted that the appeals will have to be allowed by setting asidethe orders passed by the Tribunal. 2. Whether there was sufficient cause forcondoning the delay in filing especially in theabsence of any documentary proof provided by theassessee?" 4. Mr.Patty B.Jeganathan, learned standing counsel for theappellant submitted that the assessee was not diligent enough infiling the appeals within the time. Learned counsel furthersubmitted that the assessee was adopting delaying tactics andtherefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in exercising thejurisdiction in favour of the assessee. Learned counsel alsosubmitted that even before the Tribunal, after filing the appeals,the assessee was not represented. Hence the learned counselsubmitted that the appeals will have to be allowed by setting asidethe orders passed by the Tribunal. 5. A perusal of the orders passed by the Tribunal would indicatethat the Chartered Accountant, who represented the case of theassessee, has filed an affidavit stating the reasons for the delay.It is the case of the assessee that the appeals could not be filed intime because of the fact that the original orders passed by theAssessing Officer were misplaced and the records from the erstwhileChartered Accountant could not be received in time. The CharteredAccountant also filed an affidavit explaining the reason for thedelay. It is not the case of the Revenue that the said affidavit https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ filed by the Chartered Accountant is false. There is no seriousdispute regarding the affidavit filed by the Chartered Accountant. 6. It is not in dispute that there is some delay in filing theappeals by the assessee. However, the mere delay itself cannot be aground to hold that the same shall not be condoned. In everyapplication filed for condonation of delay, there will be failure onthe part of the assessee concerned in approaching the appropriateforum within the time. The Tribunal has found that the delay hasbeen properly explained by the assessee and after convincing with thesaid reason assigned by the assessee, the Tribunal has exercised itsdiscretion in favour of the assessee. When such a discretion isexercised based upon the materials available on record, we do notfind any reason to interfere with the same, especially when theassessee has given proper reasons for the condonation of delay, whichhas been found favourable by the Tribunal and the assessee has raisedsufficient issues on merits by filing appeals before Commissioner ofIncome-tax (Appeals). Hence, we do not find any substantial questionof law involved in these appeals. Accordingly, the appeals standdismissed. 7. Considering the fact that the assessment years, which aresubject matter of the appeals are 2000-2001 and 2001-2002respectively, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case where theCommissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) will have to decide the issuesin the appeals in a time bound manner. Accordingly, the Commissionerof Income-tax (Appeals) is directed to number the appeals and disposeof the same within a period of three months from the date of receiptof a copy of this order. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 of 2010 (5petitions) are also dismissed. sd/-Asst.Registrar /True copy/ ATRTo Sub.Asst.Registrar 1. The Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Madras. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Madras. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XII No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 034. No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 034. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-XV, Chennai. Circle-XV, Chennai. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. Chennai. + 1 c.c. to Mr. Putty B. Jeganathan, Standing Counselfor Income Tax. S.R.No.56817.for Income Tax. S.R.No.56817. TC (A) Nos.619 to 624 of 2010TRM (CO)GSK 23.08.2010.