RAGHUVEER SINGH KHANGAROT, Jaipur V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, Jaipur

ITA 1132/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0758 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K L MOOLCHANDAN I
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Peak credit; Rule of consistency; Ignorance of law
• Section: 271(1)(c); 148; 144

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENC HE A JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRA M SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 1132/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-11 RAGHUVEER SINGH KHANGAROT S/O SHRI PHOOL SINGH KHANGAROT, 129, JATAN KI DHANI, SANJHARIA, TEHSIL SANGANER, JAIPUR CUKE VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-07, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AVZPK0320M VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K. L. MOOLCHANDANI (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SMT ANURADHA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 06/03/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25/03/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-3, JAIPUR DATED 09.08.2018 FOR AY 2010-11 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE A PPEAL AT ADMISSION STAGE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE WHICH CAUSED DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THUS DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN THIS MANNER IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCI PLES OF EQUITY AND NATURAL JUSTICE AND THE SAME DESERVE TO BE QUASHE D SUMMARILY. 2.1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY ERRED IN DISMISSIN G THE APPEAL AT ITA NO. 1132/JP/2018 RAGHUVEER SINGH KHANGAROT, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, CIRCLE -07, JAIPUR 2 ADMISSION STAGE WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF AN ADDITION OF RS. 39,59,443/- MADE BY THE LD. AO ON ACCOUNT OF THE CR EDIT ENTRIES APPEARING IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND WITHOUT APPRECIAT ING THE FACT THAT THESE DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS O F THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AS EXPLAINED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR DULY ACCEPT ED BY THE REVENUE AND ALSO IGNORING THE PEAK THEORY OF THE BANK DEP OSITS. THUS THE APPEAL ORDER SO PASSED IS NOT A WELL-REASONED AND L OGICAL ORDER AND THE SAME DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO WHILE DI SMISSING THE APPEAL IN SUMMARY MANNER. THUS THE ADDITION OF RS. 39,59,443/ - MADE BY THE LD. AO HAS BEEN CONFIRMED, WHICH IS FACTUALLY AND LEGAL LY INCORRECT AND THE SAME DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 VIDE ORDER DATED 21.03.2013 W HEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER BROUGHT TO TAX AN AMOUNT OF RS. 39,59,443/- AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE FILED MANUAL APPEAL WHICH IS DELAYED BY 11 65 DAYS AND REASON/ EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DELAY IN FILI NG THE APPEAL IS NOT BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE APPEAL INTENTIONALLY IN TIME WITHOUT CONSIDERING TH E PROVISIONS OF LAW. HENCE, HE REJECTED THE CONDONATION PETITION FILED BY THE A SSESSEE AND THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED AT ADMISSION STAGE ITSELF. AGGRIEVED WIT H THE SAID ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITT ED THAT THE APPELLANT IS AN ILLITERATE PERSON WITH A VILLAGE BACKGROUND HAVI NG NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE ITA NO. 1132/JP/2018 RAGHUVEER SINGH KHANGAROT, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, CIRCLE -07, JAIPUR 3 INCOME TAX MATTERS ETC. IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007- 08 I.E. ON 10.7.2007, HE HAD SOLD A PIECE OF HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND MEASURING 7.02 HECTARE FOR RS.11.50 CRORES. EXCEPT AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS AND INCOME THE REFROM, THE APPELLANT HAD NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME. DUE TO HIS IGNORANCE ABO UT THE INCOME TAX MATTERS, HE DID NOTHING EXCEPT DEPOSITING THE SALE PROCEEDS IN THE BANK A/C OPENED FOR THIS PURPOSE ONLY. ON GETTING INFORMATIO N ABOUT SUCH BANK DEPOSITS, THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WAS OPENED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPTARTMENT AND INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED U/S 148 OF TH E ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09. AS THE APPELLANT WAS TOTALLY IGNORANT ABOUT SUCH TA XATION OBLIGATIONS, SO ON THE ADVICE OF HIS FRIENDS AND WELL-WISHERS, HE HAD HAND ED OVER SUCH NOTICE TO A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT STATIONED AT JAIPUR AND FELT ' END' OF THE MATTER. BECAUSE OF HIS CASUAL APPROACH IN THE MATTER, THE AUTHORIZE D REPRESENTATIVES HAD ALSO BECOME CARELESS AND DID NOT ATTEND THE PRO CEEDINGS PROPERLY AND REGULARLY, RESULTING IN EX-PARTE ORDER U/S 144 OF THE ACT. DUE TO LACK OF REPRESENTATION IN THE CASE, THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WAS ALSO IMPOSED. IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AN D HONBLE ITAT ALSO, THE CASE COULD NOT BE TAKEN UP IN RIGHT EARNEST, RESULT ING IN EX-PARTE ORDERS PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES TO CONFIRM THE ADDITIO N MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH SALE PROCEEDS OF THE `AGRICULTURAL LAND' WITHOUT GO ING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. DUE TO LACK OF REPRESENTATION, THE ITAT, JAIP UR BENCH WAS ALSO PLEASED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IN LIMINE WITHO UT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE FACTS. THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN IGNORANT THROUGHO UT THESE PROCEEDINGS AND THE FATE OF APPEAL ORDERS ETC. AS A RESULT OF SUCH EX-PARTE APPEAL ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR, COERCIVE MEASURE S OF RECOVERY WERE INITIATED AND THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS OF THE APPELLANT WERE ATTACHED TO RECOVER SUCH DISPUTED DEMAND. AT THIS STAGE ONLY, THE APPELLANT HAD COME TO KNOW THE GRAVITY OF THE INCOME TAX MATTERS AND 'LACK OF REPR ESENTATION' BY HIS ARS BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES INCLUDING BEFORE THE ITAT , JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, A MISC. APPLICATION WAS FILED BEFORE THE BENCH WITH A REQUEST TO ITA NO. 1132/JP/2018 RAGHUVEER SINGH KHANGAROT, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, CIRCLE -07, JAIPUR 4 RECALL THEIR EX-PARTE ORDER. HAVING CONSIDERED THE BONAFIDE IGNORANCE OF THE APPELLANT AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH PRE VENTED THE APPELLANT FROM MAKING PROPER REPRESENTATION BEFORE THEM, THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR WAS PLEASED TO RECALL THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THEM AND DIRECTED THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH ON THE BASI S OF DOCUMENTARY DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS WHICH COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED DUE TO COMM UNICATION GAP BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND HIS ARS. THEREAFTER, THE APPELLA NT HAD BECOME VERY CAREFUL AND METICULOUS IN GETTING THE SET-ASIDE AND OTHER P ENDING PROCEEDINGS COMPLETED RELIGIOUSLY. IN THE 'SET-ASIDE' PROCEEDIN GS OF THE ASSTT. YR. 2008-09, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT WAS ACCEPTED. LIKE-WISE, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR. 2009-10 WERE ALSO GOT COMPLETE D BY FURNISHING ALL THE REQUIRED DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS. COPY OF THESE ASSES SMENT ORDERS ARE PLACED IN THE PB AT PAGES NO. 6 TO 10. FROM THESE ASSESSMENT/ APPEAL ORDERS, IT IS SEEN THAT NOW THE APPELLANT HAD BECOME VERY CAREFUL IN D ISCHARGING HIS LEGAL, TAXATION AND OTHER STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS. 4. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT AT T HIS STAGE, THE APPELLANT HAD COME TO KNOW THE FATE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS FOR THE IMPUNGED ASSESSMENT YEAR, I.E, A.YR. 2010-11 ALSO, WHICH WER E COMPLETED EX-PARTE U/S 144 OF THE ACT DUE TO NON-REPRESENTATION BY HIS AR AND ALSO NON-FILING OF APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID EX-PARTE ORDER. THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR WERE IDENTICAL. THE CASE FOR THIS Y EAR WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION REGARDING CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK A/C. IN ABSENCE OF PROPER REPRESENTATION BY THE ARS., THE A SSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED EX-PARTE U/S 144 OF THE ACT ON 21.3.2013 AT RS. 39, 59,443/- (TREATING ALL THE CREDIT ENTRIES AS UN-EXPLAINED) AGAINST WHICH NO AP PEAL WAS FILED BY THEM. THE APPELLANT WAS TOTALLY IGNORANT ABOUT THE EX-PARTE O RDER SO PASSED AND NON- FILING OF THE APPEAL BY HIS ARS. TILL THE SET-ASIDE PROCEEDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR OF 2008-09 WERE TAKEN UP FOR RE-ASSESSMENT. AN AFFIDAVIT TO THIS EFFECT IS ITA NO. 1132/JP/2018 RAGHUVEER SINGH KHANGAROT, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, CIRCLE -07, JAIPUR 5 SUBMITTED HEREWITH FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL AND RECORD AT PAGE NO. 11 & 12. THUS THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY BONA-FIDE AND HONEST REASONS FROM NON-FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME AS STATED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, TH E APPELLANT HAD IMMEDIATELY CHANGED HIS ARS AND HAD AUTHORIZED THE AR TO TAKE A PPROPRIATE REMEDIAL ACTIONS FOR FILING APPEAL ETC. 5. WHILE EXPLAINING THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES, THE PRESENT AR HAD FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ALONG WITH A CONDONATION REQUEST LETTER DATED 27.06.2016 AS PER COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IN THE APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND HAD TURNED DO WN THE SAME 'SUMMARILY' WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FROM READING OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT (A), IT IS NOTED THAT HE HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL AT 'ADMISSION' STAGE ON THE PLEA THAT THE AP PELLANT HAD NOT FILED THE APPEAL IN TIME 'INTENTIONALLY'. OBVIOUSLY, SUCH FIN DINGS ARE NOT FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY MAINTAINABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (I) THE LD. CIT (A) HAD FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS EXPLAINED IN THE ASSTT. YR. 2008-09. HERE IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH WAS PLEASED TO RECALL THEIR APPEAL ORDER IN THE INTERES T OF EQUITY AND NATURAL JUSTICE. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES CONTINUED TO BE SAME IN THIS YEAR ALSO. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HOWEVER, IGNORED THE PAST FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND HAS REJECTED THE CONDONATION APPLICATION SUMMARILY, IGNORING THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY. (II) THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALLEGED THAT THE APPELLAN T HAD NOT FILED THE APPEAL IN TIME 'INTENTIONALLY'. WHILE MAKING SUCH OBSERVATION S, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO SPELL OUT THE 'PURPOSE' AND 'MOTIVES' TO FILE TH E APPEAL LATE. OBVIOUSLY, FILING ITA NO. 1132/JP/2018 RAGHUVEER SINGH KHANGAROT, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, CIRCLE -07, JAIPUR 6 OF APPEAL LATE WOULD NOT SERVE ANY PURPOSE OF THE A PPELLANT. THUS SUCH FINDINGS APPEAR TO BE 'ILLOGICAL' AND UN-REASONABLE'. OBVIOU SLY, THERE APPEARS NO REASON FOR THE APPELLANT NOT TO FILE THE APPEAL IN TIME. T HUS SUCH FINDINGS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE AND DESERVE TO BE SET- ASIDE. 6. ON MERITS, THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD AO IS NOT MAINTAINABLE FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY. ON GOING TH ROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT CAN BE NOTED THAT THE ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE BY HIM ON THE BASIS OF HIS PERSONAL 'WHIMS' ONLY. AS MENTIONED IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN RESPECT OF THE ENTIRE CREDIT ENTRIES OF RS.39,59,443/- APPEARING IN THE BANK A/C, TREATING THE ENTIRE DEPOSITS AS `UN- EXPLAINED', WITHOUT EXAMINING THE NATURE OF SUCH EN TRIES AND THE ROTATION OF THE FUNDS WITHDRAWN FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT ITSELF. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS INFORMED BY THE A.R. THAT THE C ASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD IN THE A.YR. 2008-09 AS PER 'CASH FLOW STATEMENT' PLUS THE FUNDS ROTATED OUT OF THE BANK WITHDRAWALS AS EVIDENT FROM THE BANK STATEMENT. THE LD. AO HAD HOW EVER REJECTED SUCH EXPLANATION ON THE PLEA THAT THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN NON-CO-OPERATIVE THROUGHOUT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AND THE REPL Y WAS FILED AT THE `FAG END OF THE YEAR' TO COVER UP THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS SUPERFICIALLY, NO POWER OF AUTHORITY WAS FILED BY THE AR, SO THE REPL Y FURNISHED BY HIM WAS NOT CONSIDERED, THE DEMAND FOR THE ASSTT. YR. 2008-09 H AD NOT BEEN PAID SO FAR, THIS FACT SHOWS NON-CO-OPERATIVE ATTITUDE OF THE AP PELLANT AND DURING THIS YEAR ALSO, THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN TRYING TO SOME-HOW C OVER UP HIS MISCHIEF. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. AO ARE IRRELEVANT, IMMATERIAL AND DEVOID OF MERITS; BASED ON HIS PERSO NAL WHIMS. IN THE PROCESS, THE LD. AO HAD FAILED TO SPELL OUT AS TO HOW THE EX PLANATION FILED BY THE AR WAS SUPERFLUOUS. THUS THESE FINDINGS ARE NOT MAINTAINAB LE. ON THE FACE OF THE 'CASH FLOW STATEMENT' AND 'BANK STATEMENT' BEING THE DOCU MENTARY EVIDENCES, THE ITA NO. 1132/JP/2018 RAGHUVEER SINGH KHANGAROT, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, CIRCLE -07, JAIPUR 7 CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT COULD NOT BE NEGATED S UMMARILY; PARTICULARLY WHEN THESE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT WERE ACCEPTED BY DEPARTMENT IN THE ASSTT. YR. 2008-09 AND 2009-10 (COPY OF CASH FLOW STATEMEN T AND BANK STATEMENT ARE PLACED ON RECORD). IN THE PROCESS, THE LD. AO H AD FAILED TO SPELL OUT AS TO HOW THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE AR WAS SUPERFLUOUS . ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION SO MADE IS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY INCORRECT AND THE SAME DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 7. THE LD DR IS HEARD WHO HAS OPPOSED THE CONTENTIO NS SO ADVANCED BY THE LD AR. THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEE N FILED WITH A CONSIDERABLE DELAY OF 1165 DAYS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO E XPLAIN THE CAUSE OF SUCH DELAY AND HOW THE SAME WAS BEYOND HIS CONTROL. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE APPEAL AT THE ADMISSION STAGE ITELF AND THE SAID ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) MAY KINDLY BE C ONFIRMED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD AR HAS EXPLAINED THE CAUSE OF DE LAY IN FILING THE APPEAL ON IGNORANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE TAXATION MATTER S AND BLIND RELIANCE ON THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WHO HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED T O TAKE CARE OF HIS TAX MATTERS. IT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE LD AR THAT ONLY WHEN THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ATTACHED THE ASSESSEES AGRICULTURAL LAN D HOLDINGS, HE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE NEGLIGENCE ON PART OF HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND HAS THEREAFTER TAKEN CORRECTIVE STEPS IN TERMS OF REGUL ARIZING HIS TAX AND RELATED APPEAL MATTERS AND HAS SINCE CHANGED HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID CONTENTIONS, AN AFFIDAVIT HAS B EEN FILED WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT RIGHT FROM AY 2008-09 ONWARDS , THERE HAS BEEN CONSISTENCE NON-COMPLIANCE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND/OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED U/S 144 AND THERE ARE DELAYS IN FILING THE APPEALS AND THE APPEALS AR E DISMISSED IN LIMINE INCLUDING FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. FOR AY 2008-09, THERE WAS NON- ITA NO. 1132/JP/2018 RAGHUVEER SINGH KHANGAROT, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, CIRCLE -07, JAIPUR 8 APPEARANCE BEFORE THE COORDINATE BENCH AS WELL AND THE MATTER WAS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE MATTER WAS RECALLED B Y THE COORDINATE BENCH AND SET-ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. IN THE PRESENT CA SE, THE ASSESSEE HAS APPOINTED HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE TO LOOK AFTER HIS TAX ATION MATTERS AND FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND THAT TWO P ERSONS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE O NE PERSON WAS NOT CARRYING A VALID AUTHORIZATION AND BY THE TIME THE SECOND PERS ON WAS APPOINTED, IT WAS TOWARDS THE FAG END OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE THEREFORE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CASUAL IN HIS APPROACH TOWARD S HANDLING HIS TAXATION MATTERS ATLEAST AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. IGNORANCE OF LAW CANNOT BE AN EXCUSE FOR NON-COMPLIANCE. ONCE THE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT, IT IS INCUMBENT ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO RESPOND EITHER BY HIMSELF OR APPOINT AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE IN A TIMELY MANNER. FURT HER, ONCE AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE IS APPOINTED, HE IS GUIDED BY THE TE RMS OF HIS APPOINTMENT AND THE PROFESSIONAL ETHICS IN TERMS OF TIMELY ATTENDIN G TO THE PROCEEDINGS AND ADVISING THE CLIENT FROM TIME TO TIME. SIMILARLY, O NCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSING CERT AIN INCOME IN HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH OR DER, THE LAW HAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE CAN FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND MAKE THE NECESSARY REPRESENTATION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT ONCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THER E HAS BEEN CONSIDERABLE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). T HE ASSESSEE HAS ATTRIBUTED THE DELAY ON HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE STATING THAT AS IN THE PAST YEARS, THE ASSESSEE HAS HANDED OVER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO HI S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND HAS AUTHORIZED THE LATTER TO TAK E THE NEXT STEPS INCLUDING FILING THE APPEAL ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVE R, THE LATTER HAS FAILED IN DISCHARGING HIS PROFESSIONAL DUTIES TOWARDS HIM AS REFLECTED FROM DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. TO OUR MIND, THESE ARE SERIOUS ALLEGAT IONS AND WE ARE NOT AN AUTHORITY TO COMMENT ON THIS. ALL WE CAN SAY IS TH AT ONCE A PROFESSIONAL IS ITA NO. 1132/JP/2018 RAGHUVEER SINGH KHANGAROT, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, CIRCLE -07, JAIPUR 9 APPOINTED TO HANDLE A CLIENTS MATTER AND FOR ANY R EASON, THE PROFESSIONAL IS NOT IN A POSITION TO HANDLE THE CLIENTS MATTER, HE SHO ULD REACH OUT TO THE CLIENT AND INFORM THE LATTER. THIS WILL HELP THE CLIENT IN TA KING CORRECTIVE STEPS IN REGARD TO HIS MATTERS. HOWEVER, WHEN THE CLIENT IS KEPT IN D ARK AND NOT EVEN INFORMED ABOUT THE NON-FILING OF APPEAL OR ATTENDING TO THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, IT IS PROFESSIONALLY NOT CORRECT ON PART OF THE AUTHORIZE D REPRESENTATIVE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE THEREFORE FIND THAT THOUGH THE AUT HORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN APPOINTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HELP HIM IN ATTEN DING TO HIS TAX MATTERS, HOWEVER, THERE HAS BEEN DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT AN ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZE D FOR DELAY AND LATCHES ON PART OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. FURTHER, WH ERE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OT HER, CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERRED. HERE, USEFUL REF ERENCE CAN BE DRAWN TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CO LLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION ANANTNAG & ANOTHERS VS MST. KATJI & ORS. 1987 AIR 1 353 WHERE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WAS PLEASED TO HELD AS UNDER: THE LEGISLATURE HAS CONFERRED THE POWER TO CONDONE DELAY BY ENACTING SECTION 51 OF THE INDIAN LIMITATION ACT OF 1963 IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO PART IES BY DISPOSING OF MATTERS ON 'MERITS'. THE EXPRESSION 'SUFFICIENT CAU SE' EMPLOYED BY THE LEGISLATURE IS ADEQUATELY ELASTIC TO ENABLE THE COU RTS TO APPLY THE LAW IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER WHICH SUBSERVES THE ENDS OF JUSTI CE--THAT BEING THE LIFE-PURPOSE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE INSTITUTION O F COURTS. IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THIS COURT HAS BEEN MAKING A JUSTIFI ABLY LIBERAL APPROACH IN MATTERS INSTITUTED IN THIS COURT. BUT THE MESSAG E DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE PERCOLATED DOWN TO ALL THE OTHER COURTS IN THE HIERARCHY. AND SUCH A LIBERAL APPROACH IS ADOPTED ON PRINCIPLE AS IT IS R EALIZED THAT:- ITA NO. 1132/JP/2018 RAGHUVEER SINGH KHANGAROT, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, CIRCLE -07, JAIPUR 10 'ANY APPEAL OR ANY APPLICATION, OTHER THAN AN APPLI CATION UNDER ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF ORDER XXI OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PR OCEDURE, 1908. MAY BE ADMITTED AFTER THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD IF THE APPELLA NT OR THE APPLICANT SATISFIES THE COURT THAT HE HAD SUFFICIENT CAUSE FO R NOT PREFERRING THE APPEAL OR MAKING THE APPLICATION WITHIN SUCH PERIOD .' 1. ORDINARILY A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY LODGING AN APPEAL LATE. 2. REFUSING TO CONDONE DELAY CAN RESULT IN A MERITO RIOUS MATTER BEING THROWN OUT AT THE VERY THRESHOLD AND CAUSE OF JUSTI CE BEING DEFEATED. AS AGAINST THIS WHEN DELAY IS CONDONED THE HIGHEST THA T CAN HAPPEN IS THAT A CAUSE WOULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS AFTER HEARING TH E PARTIES. 3. 'EVERY DAY'S DELAY MUST BE EXPLAINED' DOES NOT M EAN THAT A PEDANTIC APPROACH SHOULD BE MADE. WHY NOT EVERY HOUR'S DELAY , EVERY SECOND'S DELAY? THE DOCTRINE MUST BE APPLIED IN A RATIONAL C OMMON SENSE PRAGMATIC MANNER. 4. WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERA TIONS ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DE SERVES TO BE PREFERRED FOR THE OTHER SIDE CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE VESTED RIGH T IN INJUSTICE BEING DONE BECAUSE OF A NON-DELIBERATE DELAY. 5. THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT DELAY IS OCCASIONED DELIBERATELY, OR ON ACCOUNT OF CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE, OR ON ACCOUNT OF MA LA FIDES. A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY RESORTING TO DELAY. IN FACT HE RUNS A SERIOUS RISK. 6. IT MUST BE GRASPED THAT JUDICIARY IS RESPECTED N OT ON ACCOUNT OF ITS POWER TO LEGALIZE INJUSTICE ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS BU T BECAUSE IT IS CAPABLE OF REMOVING INJUSTICE AND IS EXPECTED TO DO SO. MAKING A JUSTICE-ORIENTED APPROACH FROM THIS PERSPE CTIVE, THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN THE INS TITUTION OF THE APPEAL. THE FACT THAT IT WAS THE 'STATE' WHICH WAS SEEKING CONDONATION AND NOT A ITA NO. 1132/JP/2018 RAGHUVEER SINGH KHANGAROT, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, CIRCLE -07, JAIPUR 11 PRIVATE PARTY WAS ALTOGETHER IRRELEVANT. THE DOCTRI NE OF EQUALITY BEFORE LAW DEMANDS THAT ALL LITIGANTS, INCLUDING THE STATE AS A LITI- GANT, ARE ACCORDED THE SAME TREATMENT AND THE LAW IS ADMIN- I STERED IN AN EVEN HANDED MANNER. THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR ACCORDING A STEP-MOTHERLY TREATMENT WHEN THE 'STATE' IS THE APPLICANT PRAYING FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. IN FACT EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT ON ACCOUNT OF AN IMPERSONAL MACHINERY (NO ONE IN CHARGE OF THE MATTER IS DIRECT LY HIT OR HURT BY THE JUDGMENT SOUGHT TO BE SUBJECTED TO APPEAL) AND THE INHERITED BUREAUCRATIC METHODOLOGY IMBUED WITH THE NOTE-MAKIN G, FILE PUSHING, AND PASSING-ON-THE-BUCK ETHOS, DELAY ON ITS PART IS LESS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND THOUGH MORE DIFFICULT TO APPROVE. IN ANY EVENT, THE STATE WHICH REPRESENTS THE COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF THE COMMUN ITY, DOES NOT DESERVE A LITIGANT-NON-GRATA STATUS. THE COURTS THE REFORE HAVE TO BE INFORMED WITH THE SPIRIT AND PHILOSOPHY OF THE PROV ISION IN THE COURSE OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE EXPRESSION 'SUFFICIENT CA USE'. SO ALSO THE SAME APPROACH HAS TO BE EVIDENCED IN ITS APPLICATION TO MATTERS AT HAND WITH THE END IN VIEW TO DO EVEN HANDED JUSTICE ON MERITS IN PREFERENCE TO THE APPROACH WHICH SCUTTLES A DECISION ON MERITS. TURNI NG TO THE FACTS OF THE MATTER GIVING RISE TO THE PRESENT APPEAL, WE ARE SA TISFIED THAT SUFFICIENT CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE DELAY. THE ORDER OF THE HIGH C OURT DISMISSING THE APPEAL BEFORE IT AS TIME BARRED, IS THEREFORE SET A SIDE. DELAY IS CONDONED. AND THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE HIGH COURT. THE H IGH COURT WILL NOW DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER AFFORDING REA SONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE SIDES. 9. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND THE MATTER IS SET-A SIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME ON MERITS. ITA NO. 1132/JP/2018 RAGHUVEER SINGH KHANGAROT, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, CIRCLE -07, JAIPUR 12 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/03/2019. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 25/03/2019 * GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SH. RAGHUVEER SINGH KHANGAROT, JAIPU R 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- DCIT, CIRCLE-07, JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 1132/JP/2018} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR