, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.132/AHD/2016 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2010-2011 SHRI SHAMBHUSINGH UDESINGH RAJPUT PROP. M/S.SHILP CONSTRUCTION B/14, KESHAVBAG APARTMENT NR.SHREYAS FOUNDATION MANEKBAG, AMBAWADI AHMEDABAD 380 015. PAN : ACTPR 0137 Q VS ITO, WARD - ( 9) ( 1) NOW ITO, WARD-5(2)(3) AHMEDABAD. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. DIVETIA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SATISH SOLANKI, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 11/08/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12/08/2016 $%/ O R D E R ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.C IT(A)-5, AHMEDABAD DATED 10.12.2015 FOR THE ASTT.YEAR 2010-11. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE THA T THE APPEAL WAS TIME BARRED BY 89 DAYS BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). THE ASSESS EE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, BUT THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT CONDONE THE DELAY, AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL BEING TIME BARRED. ITA NO.132/AHD/2016 2 3. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES, I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD. IT EMERGES OUT THAT LD.AO HAS PASSED ASSES SMENT ORDER ON 14.3.2013. THIS ORDER WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 25.3.201 3. APPEAL WAS TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE FOLLOWING DATE, ON WHICH THE ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE APPEAL WITHIN TIME LIMIT, AND THEREFORE, MOVED AN A PPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 249(2) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961. IT IS PLEADED IN THE APPLICATION THAT THE ASSESSEE BELONG S TO RAJASTHAN. MARRIAGE OF HIS ELDER SON WAS TO BE SOLEMNIZED DURING THAT PERI OD. THEREFORE, HE REMAINED OUT FROM HIS BUSINESS PLACE TO HIS NATIVE PLACE. ON ACCOUNT OF PRE- OCCUPATION OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, HE COULD NOT P AY MUCH ATTENTION TOWARDS FILING OF THE APPEAL WELL IN TIME. HE ALSO SUBMITT ED THAT HE DID NOT KEEP GOOD HEALTH. THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT FIND SUBSTANCE IN TH IS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.DR CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE WAS NO T VIGILANT AND CARELESS IN CONDUCTING INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ALSO AN EX- PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE HAS ACTED NEGLIGENTLY AT ALL LEVELS. THEREFORE, NO SYMPATHY OUGHT TO BE SHOWN TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GON E THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. TO MY MIND, THERE CANNOT BE ANY DELIBER ATE ATTEMPT TO DELAY THE FILING OF THE APPEAL, BECAUSE BY MAKING THE APPEAL TIME BARRED, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT GAIN ANYTHING. THE TAX LIABILITY IMPOSED UPON HIM BY VIRTUE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER COULD ONLY BE ABSOLVED HIM, IF SUC H ORDER IS MODIFIED BY HIGHER AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, DILATORY STRATEGY C OULD NOT BE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE INTENTIONALLY. IT IS A LAPSE WHICH CAN BE BY WAY OF NEGLIGENCE OR A BONA FIDE ERROR. IF IT IS NEGLIGENCE WITH SOME SENSE OF RES PONSIBILITY ALSO, THEN, PUNISHMENT IN THE SHAPE OF TAX LIABILITY IS D ISPROPORTIONATE TO THE NEGLIGENCE. THEREFORE, I DEEM THAT IT IS A LAPSE W HICH MIGHT HAVE OCCURRED AT ITA NO.132/AHD/2016 3 THE END OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT VISUALIZING SERIOUS NESS OF THE CONSEQUENCE. CONSIDERING THE BACKGROUND OF THE ASSESSEE, AND HIS INEXPERIENCE IN HANDLING INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS, I CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILI NG THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AND RESTORE ALL THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IS ALLOWED STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 12 TH AUGUST, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 12/08/2016