M/s. Green Line (Punjab), New Delhi V. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

ITA 1102/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4048 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K R MANJANI; SSH VIJAY MANJANI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1102/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 GREEN LINE (PUNJAB), I-25, LAJPAT NAGAR-III, NEW DELHI. PAN AADFG5282H (APPELLANT) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS) WARD 50(5), NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 1103/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 GREEN LINE (DELHI), I-25, LAJPAT NAGAR-III, NEW DELHI. PAN AADFG5282H (APPELLANT) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS) WARD 50(5), NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 1104/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 GREEN LINE EARTH LTD. I-25, LAJPAT NAGAR-III, NEW DELHI. PAN AAACG6500C (APPELLANT) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS) WARD 50(5), NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT S BY S/SH. VIJAY MANJANI & K.R. MANJANI, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SMT. SIMRAN BHULLAR, CIT/DR ORDER PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: THESE THREE APPEALS BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARISE O UT OF SEPARATE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-41, NEW DELHI FOR THE CAPTIONED A SSESSMENT YEARS, DATE OF HEARING 15.01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15 .01.2018 ITA NOS. 1102, 1103 & 1104/DEL./2016 2 CHALLENGING THE RECOVERY OF INTEREST U/S. 201(1) & 201(1A) AND RECOVERY OF TDS ON CONTRACTUAL PAYMENTS MADE. 2. THE REGISTRY HAS REPORTED THESE APPEALS AS DEFEC TIVE BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 261 DAYS EACH. 3. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THE POINT OF LIMITATIO N. FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASS ESSEE, MR. K.R. MANJANI, ADVOCATE, FILED AN APPLICATION DATED 01.03.2016, ST ATING THE REASON FOR DELAY THAT THE CIT(A)S ORDERS WHICH WERE RECEIVED HAD BEEN MIX ED IN PAPERS DUE TO MISTAKE OF THE PERSON WHO WAS HANDLING THE MATTER A ND THE APPELLANT REMAINED UNDER IMPRESSION THAT APPEAL WAS FILED AND THAT THE APPELLANT CAME TO KNOW ABOUT NON-FILING OF APPEAL ONLY WHEN RECOVERY NOTIC E WAS RECEIVED FROM TRO. THESE AVERMENTS MADE BY APPELLANTS COUNSEL IN THE ABOVE APPLICATION ARE FURTHER ENDORSED BY ASSESSEE VIDE APPLICATION DATED 20.12.2017. IN SUPPORT OF THESE APPLICATIONS, AN AFFIDAVIT OF ONE SHRI B.S. B HATIA, 33 QUTAB ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI IS PLACED ON RECORD DEPOSING THEREIN THAT THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) WHEN RECEIVED WERE HANDED OVER TO THE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMEN T AND THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNDER IMPRESSION THAT THE APPEALS HAVE BEE N FILED. HOWEVER, ON RECEIPT OF RECOVERY NOTICE FROM THE TRO ON 17.02.16 , THE ASSESSEE STARTED SEARCHING FOR PAPERS AND ON THIS ACCOUNT DELAY OF E IGHT AND HALF MONTHS OCCURRED. FROM THE CONTENTS OF APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND THE DEPOSITION MADE IN THE AFFIDAVIT, WE OBSERVE FIRSTL Y THAT THERE ARE CONTRADICTORY REASONS ASSIGNED IN THE APPLICATION A ND THE AFFIDAVIT, INASMUCH AS THE APPLICATION SPEAKS THAT THE ORDERS OF THE CI T(A) WERE MIXED IN PAPERS WHEREAS THE AFFIDAVIT SPEAKS THAT THE SAID ORDERS O F CIT(A) WERE HANDED OVER TO ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT . THEREFORE, THE AFFIDAVIT FILED DOES NOT CORROBORA TE ITA NOS. 1102, 1103 & 1104/DEL./2016 3 THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE APPLICATION PROPERLY. SEC ONDLY, THE APPLICATION NOWHERE MENTIONS THE NAME OF HANDLING PERSON NOR DO ES THE AFFIDAVIT OF B.S. BHATIA SHOWS WHETHER HE WAS AN ADVOCATE, OR CHARTER ED ACCOUNTANT OR ANY EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE WHOM THE APPELLANT AUTHORI ZED TO RECEIVE THE ORDERS. SO, THERE BEING DISPARITY IN THE REASONS OF DELAY OF 261 DAYS ASSIGNED IN THE APPLICATION AND THOSE IN THE SUPPORTING AFFI DAVIT, WE FIND NO GOOD GROUND TO CONDONE THE DELAY. IT IS NOTABLE THAT SUF FICIENT CAUSE IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR EXERCISE OF DISCRETION FOR CONDONING THE DELAY. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE VAGUE REASONS OF D ELAY IN A VERY CASUAL MANNER AND THE DELAY OF 261 DAYS OCCURRED IN FILING THESE APPEALS IS NOT PROPERLY, SATISFACTORILY AND CONVINCINGLY EXPLAINED . WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT THINK IT PROPER TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN THESE APPEA LS. ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES DESERVE TO BE DISMIS SED AS DEFECTIVE, BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. 4. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH JANUARY, 2018 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (L.P. SA HU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 15.01.2018 *AKS* COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI