Sterling Hospitals Ltd, Mumbai vs Assessee

सर्वश्री आय.सी.शभमव, रेखम सदस्म एवुं सश्र ु ी सष ु भम चमर्रम, न्ममयमक सदस्म BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.1315&1316/Mum/2013 ( नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07) Sterling Hospitals Ltd., E-8, Vs. ADCIT-7(2), Mumbai Saraswat Colony, Sitaladevi Temple Road, Mahim, Mumbai-400016 स्थममी रेखम सं ./ जीआइआय सं ./ PAN/GIR No. : AAACS 6526 Q (अऩीरमथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent)

यनधमवरयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Sanjay R. Parikh यमजस्र् की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Neil Philip

सन ु र्मई की तमयीख / Date of Hearing : 01/06/2015 घोषणम की तमयीख/Date of Pronouncement 10/06/2015

आदे श / O R D E R

PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M):

These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the ex-party

order of CIT(A), Mumbai for the assessment year 2006-07, in the matter

of imposition of penalty u/s.271D & 271E of the I.T. Act.

2. In the grounds of appeal, assessee has taken a ground to the effect

that the CIT(A) has not granted reasonable and sufficient opportunity of

being heard. Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit placed on record

according to which the Director of the company Dr. Prakash V Kasbekar

was suffering from acute fissure in Ano. A certificate issued by Dr.

Gautam was also placed on record in support of non-appearance before 2 ITA Nos.1315&1316/13

the ld. CIT(A). Through this affidavit the assessee has explained that

marginal delay of 13 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due

to late receipt of the notice from the Income Tax Department at the

address of parent of the Director, who being very old could not come and

deliver the notice to the assessee.

3. We have considered the rival contentions and found that the ld.

CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order, wherein the appeal was dismissed for

delay in filing of appeal and also on the ground of non-appearance on

behalf of the assessee. However, the ld. CIT(A) has not decided the

appeals on merits. After going through the reasons stated for delay in

filing the appeal before the CIT(A), we are satisfied that there was

reasonable cause insofar as notice by office of CIT(A) was served at the

registered office which was the residence of director's parents and due to

their old age, they could not deliver the notice to the assessee. We also

find that due to heavy losses in the business, the business of the

assessee was almost closed and the employees were terminated or left

on account of non-payment of their salaries in time. As per the medical

certificate and affidavit placed on record, we are satisfied that there was

reasonable cause for marginal delay of 13 days in filing the appeal.

Accordingly, we condone the delay and the matter is restored back to the

file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter on merit after giving due

opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3

ITA Nos.1315&1316/13

4. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 10/06/2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (सष ु भम चमर्रम) (आय.सी.शभमव) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (R.C.SHARMA) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनमंक Dated 10/06/2015 प्र.कु.मभ/pkm, यन.स/ PS

आदे श की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1. अऩीरमथी / The Appellant

2. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent.

3. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A), Mumbai.

4. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT

5. वर्बमगीम प्रयतयनधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai

6. गमर्व पमईर / Guard file.

आदे शािसार/ BY ORDER, सत्ममवऩत प्रयत //True Copy/

उप/सहायक पुंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, भुंफई / ITAT, Mumbai