Tribunal grants appeal delays, remands assessments, quashes jurisdictional order, and allows appeals for statistical purposes.

The delay in filing appeals was condoned by the Tribunal due to reasonable cause. The assessment for the year 2003-04 was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh order. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the same year was also directed to be restored for reassessment. The order under section 263 for the year 2000-01 was quashed by the Tribunal for exceeding jurisdiction. The penalty for the year 1999-2000 was remanded back for a fresh order. The appeal for the year 2000-2001 was allowed, and other appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Assessment for the year 2003-04.
3. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for the year 2003-04.
4. Order u/s 263 for the year 2000-01.
5. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for the year 1999-2000.

Summary:

Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:

Out of four appeals by the assessee, three appeals are against orders of the CIT(A) relating to assessment years 1998-99, 2003-04 and one appeal against the order passed u/s.263, which is relating to assessment year 2000-01. Appeals in ITA No.2499/Mum/09, ITA No.6830/Mum/08 and ITA No.2500/Mum/09 are time barred for 838 days. The affidavit filed by Shri Chander Mohan Sethi, one of the directors of the assessee company, explained the reasons for the delay in filing the appeals. The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause in filing the appeal late before the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Katiji and Others vs. Collector, Land Acquisition (167 ITR 471) observed that substantial justice deserves to be preferred over technical considerations. In view of these facts and circumstances, the delay in filing the appeals was condoned.

Assessment for the Year 2003-04:

The assessment in this case was completed u/s.144 as none could appear before the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer due to non-cooperation from the assessee. The Tribunal, considering the facts, remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for the Year 2003-04:

Since the quantum matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, the penalty order was also liable to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after completing reassessment as directed.

Order u/s 263 for the Year 2000-01:

The CIT found that the Assessing Officer had not made proper inquiries/verification of claims made in the accounts/return/computation. The CIT set aside the order of the Assessing Officer by holding it as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and directed the Assessing Officer to tax the value of 1737.45 MT of goods less 5% on account of brokerage as unaccounted investment in purchases. The Tribunal found that the CIT had travelled beyond his jurisdiction and that the Assessing Officer had made proper inquiries. The Tribunal held that the order of the CIT was not sustainable in law and quashed it.

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for the Year 1999-2000:

The Assessing Officer levied penalty based on the order of the CIT(A), which was confirmed ex-parte. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Conclusion:

In the result, the appeal in ITA No.2500/Mum/09 for Assessment Year 2000-2001 is allowed and the other appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

---