Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Nagpur
Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Nagpur vs Shri Gajendra Dashounath Sokusare , ... on 28 November, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
HON'BLE SHRI G. MANIUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA Nos. 182/NAG/ 2018
(Asst. Year : 2013-14)
ITO, Ward-3(2}, - ¥5,
Ground floor, Saraf
Chambers, Mount
Road, Sadar,
Nagpur-440061
Shri Gowardhan D. Chakole,
Plot mo, 39. F. No. 103,
Shivranjini Appartment,
Congress Nagar, Nagpur-
440022,
PAN No. ASRPC1773F
ITA No. 183/NAG/2018
(Asst. Year : 2010-11)
ITO, Ward-3(2), Vs.
Ground floor, Saraf
Chambers, Mount
Road, Sadar,
Nagpur-440001
Shri Sanjeev Digambar
Deshpande,
Flat No, 22, Asawari
Apartments North Ambazari
Road, Nagpur-440019
PAN No. AAWPDOGISA
ITA No. 184/NAG/2018
(Asst. Year : 2013-14)
ITO, Ward-3(2}, Vs.
Ground floor, Saraf
Chambers, Mount
Road, Sadar,
Nagpur-440001
Shri Sachin Mahadeorac
Bhagat,
35, Uroovela Colony, Wardha
Read, Nagpur-440015
PAN No. AKAPB6309B
ITA No. 185/NAG/2018
{Asst. Year : 2013-14}
ITO, Ward-3(2), Vs.
Ground floor, Saraf
Chambers, Mount
Road, Sadar,
Nagpur-440001
Shri Rajgopalan Vardhanchari,
Aroshi Apartments, Spandan
nagar, N-4 CIDCO,
Aurangabad.
PAN No. AASOC9S495R
ITA No. 186/NAG/2018
(Asst. Year : 2009-10)
5 ITO, Ward-3(2}, Vs Shri Sudarshan Ramchand Ra
Ground floor, Saraf Bokade, 271, Vivek
Chambers, Sadar, Apartmetn, C. B. Road,
Nagpur-440001 Opposite Agricuiture College
Hostel, Ram Nagar, Nagpur
PAN No. ABBPB1156C
ITA No. 187/NAG/ 2018
(Asst. Year : 2012-13)
6 ITO, Ward-3{2}, Vs. shri Rehan Ahmed Azmi,
Ground floor, Saraf G-2/103 Aman Heritage, Kato}
Chambers, Sadar, Road Jafar Nagar, Nagpur
Nagpur-440001 .
PAN No, ATAPALSIO3A,
ITA No. 1868 /NAG/ 2018
&
CO No. 23/Nagpur/2018
(Asst. Year : 2010-11)
7-8 ITO, Ward-3(2}, Vs. Shri Sheshrao Namdeorao
Ground floor, Saraf Bhoyar,
Chambers, Sadar, A-&, Vrundavan Appartment
Nagpur-440001 Bharat Nagar, Amravati Road,
Nagpur-440033
PAN No. ABOPB2764B
ITA No. 189/NAG/2018
&
CO No. 16/Nagpur/ 2018
(Asst. Year : 2010-11)
9-10 ITO, Ward-3{2), Vs. Shri Rajendra Prabhakar
Ground floor, Saraf Thengdi,
Chamber, Sadar, Plot No, 40, Navodaya
Nagpur-440001 Appartments Chitale Marg,
Dhantoli, Nagpur-440012
PAN Na. AAPPT1458C
11-
12
13-
14
15-
16
1/7
ITA No. 190/NAG/ 2018
&
CO No. 17/Nagpur/2018
(Asst. Year : 2011-12)
ITO, Ward-3(2), Vs.
Ground floor, Saraf
Chambers, Sadar,
Nagpur-440001
Shirt Manoj N, Dongre,
State Bank of India, Computer
Section, IfIrd floor, Kigsway,
Nagpur-440061
PAN No. ABHPD&4638M
ITA No. 191/NAG/ 2018
&
CO No. 18/Nagpur/2018
{Asst. Year : 2012-13)
ITO, Ward-3(2), Vs.
Ground floor, Saraf
Chambers, Sadar,
Nagpur-440001
Shri Sudhir Vithalrao
"Hharbade,
State Bank Of India,
Vivekanand Nagar, Nagpur-
440015
PAN No. AAZPK6485C
ITA No. 192/NAG/2618
&
CO No. 19/Nagpur/2018
(Asst. Year : 2010-11)
ITO, Ward-3(2}, Vs.
Ground floor, Saraf
Chambers, Mount:
Road, Sadar,
Nagpur-440001
Smt. Pushpa H. Nimje,
25, Gajanan Nagar, Behind
Hindustan Colony, Wardh
Road, Naqgur, Nagqpur-
440015
PAN No, AALPNG703C
ITA No. 193/NAG/ 2018
(Asst. Year : 2011-12)
ITO, Ward-3{2), Vs,
Ground flear, Saraf
Chambers, Mount
Road, Sadar,
Nagpur-440001
Shri Anil Keshaorao Bhagat,
C/305, Vaisnali Apartment,
Tilak Nagar, Nagpur-440010
PAN No. ABBPBO574G
18-
19
20
21-
22
23-
24
ITA No. 194/NAG/2018
&
CO No. 20/Nagpur/2015
(Asst. Year : 2010-11)
ITO, Ward-3(2)}, Vs.
Sround floor, Saraf
Chambers, Sadar,
Nagpur-440001
Shri Arvind Premchand
Potdar, 73A, Mausam Society,
Near-Departmental
Representative. Rathi Clinic,
Manish Nagar, Somalwada,
Nagpur-440015
PAN No. ACPPPSO7I1P
ITA Nos, 195/NAG/2018
(Asst. Years : 2011-12)
ITO, Ward-3{2}, Vs.
Ground floor, Saraf
Chambers, Sadar,
Nagour-440001
Shri Subhash Udhaorao
Meshram, 429 A, Hanuman
Nagar, Nagpur-440009
PAN No. ABHPM5505G
ITA No. 196/NAG/2018
&
CO No. 21/Nagpur/ 2018
(Asst. Year : 2013-14)
ITO, Ward-3(2}, Vs.
Ground floor, Saraf
Chambers, Sadar,
Nagpur-440001
shri Jolly Abraham,
45, H.B. Estate, Sonegaon,
Knamla, Nagpur,
Nagpur-440072
PAN No. ACEPAG325)
ITA No. 197 /NAG/2018
&
CO No. 22/Nagpur/ 2018
(Asst. Year : 2013-14)
ITO, Ward-3({2}, Vs,
Ground floor, Saraf
Chambers, Sadar,
Nagpour-440001
shri Gajendra Dashounath
Sokusare, Piot No. 30,
Wankhede Lay Gut Umrer,
Umrer, Nagpur-441203
PAN No. AEYPS3485D
~}
25
26
2?
28
29
ITA No. 198/NAG/ 2018
(Asst. Year ; 2011-12)
ITO, Ward-3{2}, V5.
Ground floor, Saraf
Chambers, Sadar,
Nagpur-440001
Shri Gopal Shriram Band, Plot
No. 60, Shivaji Nagar,
Nagpur-440004
PAN No. ABOPB4037H
IFA No. 199/NAG/2018
(Asst. Year : 2012-13)
ITO, Ward-3(2)}, Vs.
Ground floor, Saraf
Chambers, Sadar,
Nagpur-440001
Shri Rambhau Khisadya
Taktewale, 403-A, Rachana
Vishwa Apartment, K.T Nagar,
Katole Road, Nagpur-440009
PAN No, ADDPTI2B81E
ITA Nos, 200/NAG/ 2018
(Asst. Years : 2010-11}
ITO, Ward-3{2), Vs.
Ground floor, Saraf
Chambers, Sadar,
Nagpur-440001
Shri Anil Sukhdeo Nitnaware,
3-Nagsen Nagar, Bhim Chowk
Nara Road, Nagpur-440014
PAN No. ABYPN9465D
ITA Nos. 201/NAG/2018
(Asst. Year ; 2011-12}
ITO, Ward-3{2), Vs.
Ground floor, Saraf
Chambers, Sadar,
Nagour-440001
Shri Ramkrishan Parashram
Pimplikar, 49, H.B. Estate,
Soneagaon, Nagpur-440014
PAN No, ABVPP6274F
ITA No. 202/NAG/ 2018
(Asst. Vear ! 2011-12)
ITO, Ward-3(2), Vs.
Ground floor, Saraf
Chambers, Sadar,
Nagpur-440001
Shri Subroto A. B. Mukherjee,
House No. 130/6/A, Near
Corporation, Library, Sadar,
Nagpur-440014
PAN NO, ABZPM4935G
VA
30
31
32
33
ITA No. 203/NAG/2018
(Asst. Year : 2010-11)
ITO, Ward-3(2)},
Ground floor, Saraf
Chambers, Sadar,
Nagpur-440001
Vs.
Shri Hasandas Itstari Dhone,
House No. 185/D/E, Vidya
Nagar, Near Modern School,
Kordi Road, Nagpur-441111
PAN No. AAOPD5378C
ITA No, 204/NAG/2018
{Asst. Year : 2010-11)
ITO, Ward-3(2),
Ground floor, Saraf
Chambers, Sadar,
Nagnur-440001
Vs,
Shri Avinash Laxmikant Dani,
Plot No. 39, Process Server
Society, Swavalabai Nagar,
Nagpur-440022
PAN No. ABHPD7702L
ITA No. 205/NAG/ 2018
(Asst. Year : 2012-13)
ITO, Ward-3{2},
Ground floor, Saraf
Chambers, Sadar,
Nagpur-440001
Vs.
Smt Annapurani Venkatessan,
Flat No. 6, Sai Krupa Public
Co-operative, Knamla Road,
Sonegac Housing Seciety,
Shankar Nagar,
Nagpur-440030
PAN No, AAMPV6867G
ITA No. 206/NAG/2018
(Asst. Year : 2010-11)
ITO, Ward-3(2),
Ground floor, Saraf
Chambers, Sadar,
Nagpur-440001
(Appellants)
Date of pronouncement
Vs.
shri Uday Rajendra Panse,
M-13, Tapysya, 64 MIG Ctr.
Nandanvan Colony, Nagpur-
440009
PAN No. AEOPP2711D
{Respondents}
28/11/2018.
ORDER
PER BENCH The above listed appeais at the instance of the Revenue are directed against the respective impugned orders passed by the respective Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax {Appeals} for respective Assessment Years as indicated above, 2, Since, the facts raised in alf the appeals filed by the revenue are identical, therefore for the sake of convenience:
they are clubbed, heard and dispased of by this consolidated order.
3. First of all we take up appeal filed in ITA Nao.
182/Nag/2018 for AY 2013-14 filed by revenue.
4. At the very outset, our attention was drawn towards letter dated 30.07.2018 which relates to condonation of delay of 329 days in filing appeal before Hon'ble ITAT.
5. In this respect, id. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had decided the appeal filed by the assessee on 22.06.17 and later on, the revenue had sent the matter for taking legal opinion regarding filed of second appeal before Hon'ble [TAT. The Ld. CIT(A)-2 in his letter dated 06.06.18 had recommended for filing second appeal before Hon'ble ITAT and thus in this way, there was a delay of 329 days in filing the present appeal. It was also submitted that the delay on the part of revenue is purely bonafide because of the aforementioned reasons.
6. On the other hand, Ld. AR requested for dismissal of the said application.
7, We have heard the counsels for both the parties on the application for seeking condonation of delay and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as orders passed by the revenue authorities, we find that there is a low tax effect involved in this case and prima facie the appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable and needs to be dismissed in limine in view of the amount disputed by the Revenue is less than the monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakh fixed by the CBDT in Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11/07/2018, which is in supersession of its Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10/12/2015, in relation to filing of appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 8, Even as per the submissions of the revenue for seeking condonation of delay, it has clearly been admitted that Ld. CIT(A) had passed order on 22.06.17 and it cannot be said that those orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) were not within the knowledge and notice of the revenue. The only plea taken by the revenue is that in view of the order of Coordinate Bench of ITAT, the revenue had decided to seek legal opinion in respect of filing second appeal before the ITAT as previously the low tax effect involved in the matter, Further, the ACIT Range-3 had sent the matter for takina fegal opinion regarding filing of appeal.
9. From the averments of the revenue, it is quite clear that the Coordinate Bench of ITAT had decided the case titled State Bank Board of India Vrs DCIT on 04.04.10 i.e. approximately 7 years prior to passing the order of Ld. CIT(A) in the present case. Therefore this ground raised by the revenue did not hold bonafide. 10, Further, the revenue has no where mentioned that when the order in the case of State Bank Board of India Vrs DCIT on 04.04.10 came to the knowledge and when again the matter was sent for seeking legal opinion. No such details have been VS 10 explained or mentioned by the revenue, but the revenue has preferred to only mentioning the letter dated 06.06.18 send by Ld. CIT(A}-2 to ACIT Range-3 for filing appeals, which was ultimately filed on 36.07.18.
11. We find that the application filed by the revenue is not even supported by any affidavit of any officials. It is an undisputed fact that even in the case of State Bank Board of India Vrs DCIT, the revenue was of the party and even in the present case, the persons concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing the appeal before Tribunal. The revenue cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are of the view as to why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.
' 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012) 3 SCC 563, 1] deprecated the casual attitude of government departments in taking steps to file appeals within reasonable time in the following words:
"26, In spite of affording another opportunity to file hetter affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person in-charge has filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that the deiay was due tounevoidabie circumstances and genuine difficulties, the fact remains that, from day one the Department or the person/persons concerned have not convinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to this Court by taking appropriate steps.
27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned, were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation "when the ft {e 12 Department was possessed with competent "persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we aré posing a question why the delay is to be candaned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party defore us.
28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or flack of bongfide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.
29. In our view, it is the right time to inform ali the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bongfide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of 13 procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the Denefit of a few.
30, Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserabiy failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liabie fo be dismissed on the ground of delay."
13. Apart from above in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Amar Nath Yadav (2014) 2 SCC 422 while reiterating the above decision, the Supreme Court declined to condone the delay of 481 days in the State filing a special leave petition against _the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad,
14. Consequently, we are not satisfied with the reasons for delay of 329 days in filing the appeal. Even otherwise on the Sf id perusal of the record, we are prima facie of the view that the present appeal is not maintainable on account of low tax effect and needs to be dismissed in limine in view of the amount disputed by the Revenue is less than the monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakh fixed by the CBDT in Circular No, 03/2018, dated 11/07/2018, which is in supersession of its Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10/12/2015, in relation to filing of appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
15. Thus in view of our above discussion, we dismiss the application fited by the revenue for condonation of delay. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed.
16. Since we have already decided the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No. 182/Nag/2018 for AY 2013-14 on merits and the grounds raised in other appeals are identical to that of appeal! No. 182/ Nag/2018. Therefore following our own decision in ITA No. 182/ Nag/2618, we apply the same findings in other appeals filed by the revenue in order to maintain judicial consistency which is applicable mutatis 'Mutandis, Resultantly, the other appeals filed by the revenue also stands dismissed.
Lh i". In the net result, all the above listed appeals and Cross Objections filed by the Revenue as well as assessee stands dismissed. Registry is directed to inform the parties accordingly. Order Pronounced in open Court on this 28" Nov, 2018. Sd/- Sd/-
(G. MANJUNATHA)} (SANDEEP GOSAIN} Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 28 November, 2018.
Sr. PS.Dhananjay Copy to:
i. fhe Assessees -
1} Shri Gowardhan OD. Chakole
2) Shri Sanjeev Digarmbar Deshpande, 33 Shri Sachin Manadeorao Bhagat,
4) Shri Rajgopalan Vardhanchari, Arashi Apartments
5) Shri Sudarshan Ramchand Ra Bokade 6} shri Rehan Ahmed Azmi,
7) shri Sheshrao Namdeorao Bhoyar 8} Shri Rajendra Prabhekar Thenddi, 9} Shri Manoj N. Dongre 10} Shri Sudhir Vithalrao Kharbade, 11} Smt. Pushpa H. Nimje,
123. Shri Anil Keshaorac Bhagat 13} Siri Arvind Premchand Potdar
14) Shri Subhash Udhaorao Meshram
15) Shri Jolly Abraham, t6) Shri Gajendra Dashounath Sokusare, 17} Shr Gepal Shriram Band 18} Shri Rambhau Khisadya Taktewaie,
19) Shri Anil Sukhdeo Nitnaware,
20) Shri Ramkrishan Parashram ié Tf Shri Subroto A. B. Mukherjee
21)
22) Shre Hasandas Itstari Dhone
23) Shri Avinash Laxmikant Dani
34) Smt Annapurani Venkatessan,
25) Shri Uday Rajendra Panse 2, The Revenue 3. fhe Cif.
3. The CIT(A) AS Guard file.
5, The DLR, Nagpur.
By order