DALJEET SINGH,JIND V. ASSESSING OFFICER, JIND

ITA 847/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Daljeet Singh against an order passed by the Commissioner/Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2009-10. The appeal was filed with a significant delay of 3784 days. The Assessee sought condonation for this delay, attributing it to lapses by their consultant. However, the tribunal found the explanation insufficient and unsubstantiated, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without consideration of its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711300 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Other Referred Cases: Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh, Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi and Others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MEENAKSHI VOHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Revision of order
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 847/CHD/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Daljeet Singh, House No. 469/24, Ward 15, Employees Colony Rohtak Road Bye Pass, Jind 126102 बनाम Vs. The AO, Jind èथायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: BMIPS1734G अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent ( PHYSICAL HEARING ) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CA राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, CIT DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 23.07.2025 उदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, AM : Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 31.01.2014 passed by the Ld. Commissioner/ Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Hisar u/s 263 for AY 2009-10. Printed from counselvise.com 847-Chd-2024 Daljeet Singh, Jind 2 2. Grounds of appeal, as raised by the Assessee are reproduced as under: 1. The CIT cannot consider AO order which is duly accepted by Appellant under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act. 2. The CIT has failed to understand the business model of the Appellant, and erroneously interpreted the loss effected by the depositors as a tool to evade tax. 3. That the CIT did not allow the Appellant reasonable opportunity of being heard before issuing order. 4. Case Laws- (i) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 that \"condonation of delay reasonable cause delay of 1297 days in filing appeal being on account of lapse on the part of consultant and not being malafide, there was valid reason warranting condonation of delay and admission of appeal\". (ii) Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh (Supreme Court) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2395 of 2008 dated 26.06.2010 Unless mala fides are writ large, delay should be condoned. Printed from counselvise.com 847-Chd-2024 Daljeet Singh, Jind 3 Matters should be disposed of on merits and not technicalities. We crave leave to amend, modify and/or alter grounds and/or to adduce and rely upon such further evidence and/or documents as may be required at anytime before and during the time of hearing. 3. The Registry has pointed out that there is a massive delay of 3784 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Counsel of the Assessee has filed an Affidavit dated 03.8.2024 for condonation of delay which is reproduced as under:- Printed from counselvise.com 847-Chd-2024 Daljeet Singh, Jind 4 Printed from counselvise.com 847-Chd-2024 Daljeet Singh, Jind 5 5. Per Contra, the ld. DR strongly opposed the request of the Assessee for condonation of this inordinate delay. 6. We have considered the reasons for delay in the Affidavit filed by the Assessee for condonation of delay. In our considered opinion, the reasons advanced by the Assessee for not filing appeal against the 263 Order before the Tribunal, in time, are vague and are unsubstantiated. There is no explanation or evidence on record intimating that any effort was made by the Assessee to ascertain such facts from its counsel. We are also unable to comprehend the failure on the part of the professionals to communicate their clients in a clear and proper way. In recent times, there appears to be a growing tendency to attribute delays in filing appeals to alleged lapses by professionals, often without any supporting material or affidavit. We do not approve of this practice of imputing negligence or misconduct to professionals in the absence of even a scintilla of evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has consistently held that a person seeking condonation of delay must furnish a satisfactory Printed from counselvise.com 847-Chd-2024 Daljeet Singh, Jind 6 explanation, including a day-to-day account, for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. 7. In view of the above, we find no merit in the application seeking condonation of delay. In support of this conclusion, we place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi and Others [Civil Appeal No. 7696 of 2021, dated 16.12.2021], relied upon by the Ld. DR, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the condonation application on similar facts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court at Para 6.2 had reproduced the facts of the case to the following effect: “6.2 We have gone through the averments in the application for the condonation of delay. There is no sufficient explanation for the period from 15.03.2017 till the Second Appeal was preferred in the year 2021. In the application seeking condonation of delay it was stated that she is aged 45 years and was looking after the entire litigation and that she was suffering from health issues and she had fallen sick from 01.01.2017 to 15.03.2017 and she was advised to take bed rest for the said period. However, there is no explanation for the period after 15.03.2017. Thus, the period of delay from 15.03.2017 till Printed from counselvise.com 847-Chd-2024 Daljeet Singh, Jind 7 the Second Appeal was filed in the year 2021 has not at all been explained. Therefore, the High Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously.” 8. In our view, the facts of the present appeal are identical, rather are on worse footing, than that of the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao (supra). Therefore, in our considered view, the request and issue raised in its Affidavit do not bring out the true picture. Accordingly, the request of condonation of delay is rejected and, thus, the appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 24.07.2025. Sd/- Sd/- ( LALIET KUMAR ) ( KRINWANT SAHAY) Judicial Member Accountant Member “आर.क े.” आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "