Sh. Mohinder Singh Dhindsa, Mandi Gobindgarh V. ITO, Mandi Gobindgarh

ITA 1172/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 117221514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: H R SALDI
• Keywords: Gift; Period of limitation; Procedural lapse; Assessment record; Time period of passing order; Condonation of delay; Revised return
• Section: 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES SMC CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO. 1172/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SH. MOHINDER SINGH DHINDSA, VS. THE ITO PROP.M/S MOHINDER OIL CARRIERS. WARD I AMBE MAJRA MANDI GOBINDGARH MANDI GOBINDGARH PAN NO. ALZPS8540B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI. H.R. SALDI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.K. GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 15/06/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22/06/2015 ORDER PER H.L.KARWA, VP THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), PATIALA, DT. 25/10/2013 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE IGNORED THE FACT THAT NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS SERVED WITHIN LIMITATION AND NO PROOF WAS BROUGHT ON RECOR D AS SUCH ALL SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ARE LIABLE TO BE ANNULLED. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEAL)HAS WRONGLY AND ARBITRARILY HELD THAT THERE WAS INORDINATE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. WHEREAS SO ASSESSMENT O RDER WAS SERVED BUT THE APPELLANT APPLIED FOR OBTAINING THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R WHICH WAS SERVED ON 05.08.2011 AND APPEAL WAS FILED ON 08.08.2011 WHICH WAS WITHIN LIMITATION. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY HELD THAT DEMAND NO TICE WAS SERVED ON 31.12.2009 WHERE AS NO DEMAND NOTICE OR ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SERVED BY REGD. POST ON 31.12.2009 AND APPELLANT NEVER REFUSED TO A CCEPT AS THERE WAS NO BUSINESS AT THAT TIME AS IT WAS CLOSED IN 2008. AS SUCH THERE WAS NO POSSIBILITY TO REFUSE. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY HAVE TREATED THE APPEAL OUT OF LIMITATION AND AS SUCH HAD NOT DECIDE D THE OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL ON MERIT WHICH IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND AGA INST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE DIRECTED TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND TO HEAR THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 2 3. FIRSTLY, I WILL DECIDE GROUND NOS. 2 TO 4 OF THE APPEAL WHICH RELATE TO ISSUE OF LIMITATION. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29/03/2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 2,31,040/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T(IN SHORT THE ACT) ON 25/03/2009. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 29/03/2008, WHICH WAS SEND BY POST. AO ALSO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) ON 29/09/2009 FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 08/10/2009. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE NOTICE, SH. S.C.SATIJA, ADVOC ATE THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS ON 08/10/2009 AND THE HEARING OF THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 22/10/2009. SH. S.C. SATIJA, ADVOCATE APPEARED ON 22/10/2009 AND AT HIS REQUEST HEARING OF THE CASE W AS ADJOURNED TO 06/11/2009. ACCORDING TO AO NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE ON 06/11/2009. AGAIN AO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) TO THE ASSESSEE ON 09/12/2009, FOR APPEARANCE ON 16/12/2009 AND WAS ALSO DIRECTED HIM TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DETAILS OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND SOURC ES THEREOF. THE AO STATED THAT ON 16/12/2009 SH. S.C. SATIJA ADVOCATE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BUT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER INFORMATIO N CALLED FOR WERE NOT PRODUCED AND THE AO HAS ADJOURNED THE HEARING OF TH E CASE FOR 24/12/2009 AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, CONFIRMATION OF UNSECURED LOANS AND DETAILS OF HOUS EHOLD EXPENSES AND SOURCES THEREOF. THE AO OBSERVED THAT NONE ATTENDED ON 24/1 2/2009 NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. CONSEQUENTLY THE AO COMPLET ED THE ASSESSMENT EXPARTE UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT VIDE HIS ORDER DT. 24/12/2009. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 24/12/2009, THE AO MADE CERTAI N ADDITIONS / DISALLOWANCES. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSE SSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). AS PER THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE LIMITATION PRESCRIBED FOR FILING APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF AO BEFORE TH E CIT(A) IS 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER. AS PER ASSESSMENT REC ORD, ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONGWITH DEMAND NOTICE/ PENALTY NOTICE WERE SENT T O THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED POST ON 31/12/2009. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSE E FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON 08/08/2011. THUS, THERE WAS A DELAY O F 554 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 3 5. THE CIT(A) HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE DEMAN D NOTICE / PENALTY NOTICE ETC. HAS BEEN DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED POST ON 31/12/2009, AND HENCE THERE WAS NO REASON FOR INORD INATE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL ALMOST AFTER ONE & HALF YEARS. THE FINDINGS GIVEN B Y THE LD. CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER : 04. THE 1 ST ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FIL ED LATE. AS PER ITNS-51, THE NOTICE OF DEMAND WAS SERV ED ON 31.12.2009 WHILE, APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED ON 08.08.2011. IN THIS CONNEC TION, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT SERVED ON THE APPELLANT WITHIN LIMITATION PERIOD. 4.1 THEREFORE, REPLY WAS SOUGHT FROM THE A.O. REGAR DING PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF DEMAND. REGARDING THE SERVICE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O. IN HIS LETTER NO. 60 DATED 20.09.2013 SUBM ITTED THAT KINDLY REFER TO YOUR OFFICE LETTER NO. 354 DATED 19.09.2013 ON THE CAPTIONED SUBJECT. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER RECORD OF THIS OFFICE, ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE / PENALTI ES NOTICES WERE SENT BY REGISTERED POST ON 31.12.2009 (PHOTO COPY OF REC EIPT FROM POSTAL AUTHORITIES ENCLOSED). THE REGISTERED LETTER WAS RE CEIVED BACK WITH REMARKS FROM THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES REFUSED TO REC EIVE. THE PHOTOCOPY OF ENVELOP IS ALSO ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR READY REFEREN CE. 4.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE, IT IS A MPLY PROVED THAT THE DEMAND NOTICE / PENALTY NOTICES ETC. HAS BEEN D ULY SERVED ON THE APPELLANT BY REGISTERED POST ON 31.12.2009. IN VIEW OF THIS, I FIND NO REASON FOR THE INORDINATE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL ALMOS T AFTER ONE & HALF YEARS. 6. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER T HERE WAS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). A S PER THE CIT(A) THERE WAS A DELAY OF 554 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 24/12/2009, PASSED BY THE AO FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. ADMITTED LY THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON 08/08/2011 AGAINST THE ORDER OF AO I.E., ITO, WARD-1, MANDI GOBINDGARH DT. 24/12/2009. IT APPEARS THAT NO SEPARATE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, AS PER STATEMENT OF FACTS SUBMITTE D ALONGWITH FORM NO. 35 (SEE RULE 45) BEFORE THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE PRETENDED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY HIM WAS WELL WITH IN TIME. PARA 1 OF STATEMENT OF FACTS R EADS AS UNDER: STATEMENTS OF FACTS 1. THAT THE LD. A.O. HAS FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT EX-P ARTE WITHOUT GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY. HE HAS FRAMED THE AS SESSMENT AT A VERY HIGH FIGURE AND NO NOTICE WAS SERVED AND NO ASSESSM ENT ORDER WAS ALSO SERVED. NOW THE APPELLANT HAD APPLIED FOR OBTAINING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SO FRAMED AND RECEIVED THE COPY OF ORDER TODA Y THE 5 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011, AS SUCH APPEAL IS FILED NOW. 4 7. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE CON TENDED THAT NEITHER THE DEMAND NOTICE NOR THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SERVED U PON HIM. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT HE HAD APPLIED FOR A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SO FRAMED AND RECEIVED THE SAME ON 05/08/2011; AND THEREAFTER FILED AN APPEAL ON 08/08/2011. HENCE THERE IS NO DELAY IN FI LING THE APPEAL. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BE FORE THE CIT(A). AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THIS BENCH, LD. DR PRODUCED THE RECOR DS OF CIT(A) PATIALA CONCERNING THE ASSESSEE. LD DR SUBMITTED THAT SHRI. S.C. SATIJA, ADVOCATE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS B EFORE THE AO AS PER ORDER SHEET ENTRY DT. 08/10/2009, 22/10/2009 AND 16/12/20 09. ON 16/12/2009, THE ASSESSEE FILED SOME DETAILS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED T HAT COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DO CUMENTS REQUIRED BY THE AO. THE AO GRANTED VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASS ESSE TO FILE THE INFORMATION FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT. DUE TO NON CO-OPERAT ION FROM THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS FROM HIS COUNSEL, THE AO WAS CONSTRAINED TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BE EN PASSED ON 24/12/2009 AT AN INCOME OF RS. 919331/- WELL BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF LIMITATION DATE AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 153(1) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 153(1) APPLICABLE AT THE RELEVANT TIME, READ AS UNDER : TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENTS AND REASSE SSMENTS . 153. (1) NO ORDER OF ASSESSMENT SHALL BE MADE UNDER SECTION 143 OR SECTION 144 AT ANY TIME AFTER THE EXPIRY OF (A) TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR I N WHICH THE INCOME WAS FIRST ASSESSABLE; OR (B) ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH A RETURN OR A REVISED RETURN RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMM ENCING ON THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1988, OR ANY EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR, IS FILED UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OR SUB-SECTION(5) OF SECTION 138, WHICHEVER IS LATER : PROVIDED THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE INCOME WAS FIRST ASSESSABLE IS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2004 BUT BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2010, THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE(A) SHALL HAVE EFFECT AS IF FOR THE WORDS TWO YEARS, THE WORDS TWENTY-ONE MONTHS HAD BEEN SUBSTITUTED: 8. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2007-08 TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143 OR SECTI ON 144 WAS 31/12/2009. AS PER THE ABOVE PROVISION OF LAW THE AO WAS BOUND TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT ON OR BEFORE 31/12/2009. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS BEING ADVISED AND REPRESENTED BY HIS COUNSEL SH. S.C. SAT IJA, ADVOCATE WAS WELL 5 AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153(1), WHICH PR ESCRIBE THE TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143 OR 144 O F THE ACT. ACCORDING TO LD. DR, ASSESSEES COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE ENQUIRED ABOUT T HE DATE OF PASSING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FROM THE AO CONCERNED. NO SUCH EXE RCISE HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE APPL IED FOR A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE FIRST TIME IN FIRST WEEK OF AUGUST 20 11, I.E., ALMOST AFTER 18 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF PASSING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. LD. D R SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONGWITH DEMA ND NOTICE WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED POST ON 31/ 12/2009. PHOTOCOPY OF RECEIPT FROM POSTAL AUTHORITIES IS AVAILABLE IN THE RECORDS OF CIT(A). THE REGISTERED LETTER WAS RECEIVED BACK WITH REMARKS FROM THE POST AL AUTHORITIES REFUSED TO RECEIVE. THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENVELOPE IS ALSO AVA ILABLE IN THE FILE OF CIT(A). LD. DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GUIL TY OF NEGLIGENCE AND THERE IS INORDINATE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN GRANTING INDULGENCE AND CONDONING THE DELAY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY MUST BE SATISFIED THAT THERE HAD BEEN DILIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT AND THE LATTER WAS NOT GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE WHATSOE VER. 9. IN REJOINDER LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT NO ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. CIT( A) HAS WRONGLY HELD THAT DEMAND NOTICE WAS SERVED ON 31/12/2009, WHERE AS NO DEMAND NOTICE OR ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SERVED BY REGISTERED POST ON 3 1/12/2009 AND THE ASSESSEE NEVER REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE SAME AS THERE WAS NO BU SINESS AT THAT TIME AS IT WAS CLOSED IN 2008. AS SUCH THERE WAS NO POSSIBILIT Y TO REFUSE. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED ON THE REGISTERED LE TTER WHICH IS SAID TO BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 31/12/2009 IS DIFFERENT F ROM THE ADDRESS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE RETURN OF INC OME IS AS UNDER: MOHINDER SINGH, VILL: AMBEY MAJRA, G.T. ROAD GOBINDGARH, PUNJAB PIN- 147301 10. ON THE ENVELOPE WHICH IS STATED TO BE SERVED BY REGISTERED POST ON 31/12/2009, THE ADDRESS MENTIONED READS AS UNDER: 6 TO, SH. MOHINDER SINGH PROP. MOHINDRA OIL CAREERS, G.T. ROAD (AMBEY MAJRA), MANDI GOBINDGARH 11. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION THERE IS NO MERIT IN T HE SUBMISSION OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE RETURN O F INCOME IS DIFFERENT THAN THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE REGISTERED LETTER WHICH IS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 31/12/2009. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ASSESSEE HAS NO T MENTIONED THE WORDS PROPRIETOR M/S MOHINDER OIL CARRIERS. IN MY OPINIO N IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE AO HAS SENT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 24/12/2009 ON WRONG ADDRESS. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON 08/08/2011 AGAINST THE ORDER OF AO, (ITO, WARD-1 MANDI GOBINDG ARH). IN FORM NO. 35 THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS GIVEN THE ADDRESS AS UNDER: SH. MOHINDER SINGH DHINDSA PROP. M/S MOHINDER OIL CARRIERS AMBE MAJRA NEAR SANT PRITAM SINGH PUBLIC SCHOOL MANDI GOBINDGARH THUS THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE REGISTERED POST A ND FORM NO. 35 IS THE SAME, AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE THIS PLEA TH AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE REGISTERED POST IS WRONG OR THE REGISTERED LETT ER WAS SENT ON WRONG ADDRESS. EVEN IN FORM NO. 36 (FORM OF APPEAL TO THE APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL), THE ASSESSEE HAS MENTIONED HIS ADDRESS AS UNDER: SH. MOHINDER SINGH DHINDSA PROP. M/S MOHINDER OIL CARRIERS, AMBE MAJRA, MANDI GOBINDGARH IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT SH. H.R. SALDI, ADVOCATE HA S SUBMITTED A LETTER DT. 21.10.2013 BEFORE THE CIT(APPEAL), PATIALA WHEREIN THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS GIVEN AS UNDER: TO DATE: 21.10.2013 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) PATIALA REG: MOHINDER SINGH PROP. M/S MOHINDERA OIL CARRIERS, G. T. ROAD, MANDI GOBINDGARH PAN NO. ALZPS8540B SUB: APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08. SIR, THE APPELLANT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 07.11 . 2012 AND DATED 26.09.2013 HAD CLAIMED THAT NO PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2), 7 WHICH WAS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED ON 29.09.2008, IS FILED AND FURTHER NO PROOF HAS BEEN FILED THAT IT HAS BEEN SERVED BEF ORE 30.09.2008. AS SUCH ALL SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ARE LIABLE TO BE ANNULLE D AS SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) IS NOT BE A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY, AND THE SAME IS NOT CURABLE AND THEREFORE THE REQUIREMENT OF SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) CANNOT BE DISPENSED WITH. THUS THE ASSESSMENT IS LIABLE TO BE ANNULLED. THANKING YOU, YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- MOHINDER SINGH 12. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON 07/11/2012 AND THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS MENTI ONED AS UNDER: MOHINDER SINGH VILL. AMBEY MAJRA G.T. ROAD, SIRHIND SIDE MANDI GOBINDGARH PAN NO. ALZPS8540B IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT AS PER VAKALATNAMA SUBMITT ED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: VAKALATNAMA / POWER OF ATTORNEY BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PATIALA BY THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY, I / WE MOHINDER SINGH AS PROPRIETOR / KARTA, PARTNER / DIRECTOR C/O. OF M/S. MOHINDER OIL CARRIERS BEING ASSESSEE / APPELLANT OF MANDI GOBINDGARH HEREBY APPOINT SHRI H.R. SALDI (ADVOCATE) & SH. RAJ IV SALDI (CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT) TO REPRESENT ME / US, TO APPEAR, PLEAD AND ACT BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX, WEALTH-TAX, SALE-TAX AUTHORITIES, DEPUT Y COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER OF SALES-TAX, AND THE INCOME-TAX, APPE LLATE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, TO PRESENT APPLICATION OR PETITIONS OR APPEAL OR REVISION TO THE SAID AUTHORI TIES AND COURTS, TO PRODUCE THE ACCOUNTS, INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS SUP PLIED BY ME/US TO HIM/THEM OR PREPARED BY HIM/THEM AS PER MY/OUR DIRE CTIONS, AND TO WITHDRAW AND RECEIVE DOCUMENTS, TO EXAMINE MY/OUR I NCOME-TAX FILE, FURNISH RETURNS OF INCOME, ON FACTS AND INFORMATIO N FURNISHED BY ME/US, RECEIVE NOTICES AND REFUND VOUCHERS TO SIGN AND FIL E STATEMENTS AS INTIMATED BY ME/US AND OBTAIN COPIES OF DOCUMENTS A ND ORDERS, GIVE EXPLANATION AND GENERALLY TO DO ALL OTHER LAWFUL AC TS AND MATTERS IN CONNECTION WITH MY/OUR INCOME TAX/SALES TAX, WEALTH TAX/GIFT TAX ASSESSMENT, APPEAL AND REVISION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 8 TO EMPLOY ANY OTHER PRACTITIONER AUTHORIZED HIM TO EXERCISE THE POWER AND AUTHORITIES HEREBY, CONFERRED ON THE SAID COUNS EL, WHENEVER HE MAY THINK FIT TO DO SO. I/WE SHALL BE PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE AC COUNTS SIGNED & DELIVERED THROUGH HIM/THEM STATEMENT OR DECLARATION MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED. ACCEPTED SD/- SD/- (MOHINDER SINGH) (H.R. SALDI) DIRECTOR / PARTNER / KARTA / PROP. ADVOCATE SD/- RAJIV SALDI DATED. F.C.A 13. IT APPEARS THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE PLEA THAT ADDRESS MENTIONED ON REGISTERED POST IS WRONG OR TH AT THE LETTER WAS SENT ON WRONG ADDRESS AND THERE WAS NO BUSINESS AT THAT TIM E AS IT WAS CLOSED IN 2008. AS REGARDS THE PLEA THAT THERE WAS NO BUSINESS AS I T WAS CLOSED IN 2008, I DO NOT FIND AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENT ION. EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED ON TH E GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER SUBMITTED ANY APPLICATION BEFORE THE AO REGARDING CHANGE OF ADDRESS, IF ANY. THE ABOVE PLEA TAKEN BY THE ASS ESSEE IS AFTERTHOUGHT. THUS, I DECLINE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. F ROM THE RECORDS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONGWITH DEMAND NOTICE W ERE SENT BY REGISTERED POST ON 31/12/2009 (PHOTOCOPY OF RECEIPT FROM POSTA L AUTHORITIES IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD). THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE REGISTERED LE TTER WAS RECEIVED BACK WITH REMARKS FROM THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES REFUSED TO REC EIVE. PHOTOCOPY OF ENVELOPE IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I FULLY AGREE WITH THE SE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT THAT THERE ARE NO SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR THE INORDINATE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL ALMOST AFTER ONE AND HALF YEARS. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT T HE PHASE SUFFICIENT CAUSE IS NOT A QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE, BUT IS A QUESTION OF FACT. HENCE, WHETHER TO CONDONE THE DELAY OR NOT DEPENDS UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF EACH CASE AS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY DEPENDS ONLY ON THE FACT PLACED BY THE APPLICANT / APPELLANT BEFORE THE AUTHORITY CONC ERNED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE FACTS ARE CRYSTAL CLEAR. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE O N RECORD TO SHOW THAT THERE 9 WAS DILIGENCE ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE/APPELLANT. FU RTHERMORE, PARTY GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE CAN NOT ASK FOR CONDONATION OF INORDINAT E DELAY OF ABOUT 554 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION I DO NOT SEE AN Y INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND HENCE I UPHOLD THE SAME. 15. SINCE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FILED BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT WITH IN THE LIMITATION AND I HAVE ALREADY UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THEREFORE, I DO NOT THINK IT NECESSARY TO DECIDE GR OUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL BECAUSE THE DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE WOULD BE OF AC ADEMIC INTEREST ONLY AND NOTHING ELSE. 16. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESEE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/06/2015 SD/- (H.L.KARWA) VICE PRESIDENT DATED :22/06/2015 AG COPY TO:1. THE APPELLANT,2. THE RESPONDENT,3.THE CI T, 4.THE CIT(A),5. THE DR