K. Sudhakar Reddy, Hyd, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Cir-4(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1493/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 66430 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJEEV BISWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Depreciation; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1493/HYD/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 SRI K. SUDHAKAR REDDY HYDERABAD PAN: AJXPK3073B VS. THE ASST. CIT CIRCLE-4(1) HYDERABAD APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SRI A.V. RAGHURAM RESPONDENT BY: SRI RAJEEV BISWAL DATE OF HEARING: 01 . 11 .2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07.11.2012 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-V, HYDERABAD DATED 8.6.2011 FOR A.Y. 200 6-07. 2. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL I S WITH REGARD TO NON ADMITTING OF APPEAL ON ACCOUNT OF DEL AY OF 120 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT FOR THE A.Y. 2006 -07 THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 24.10.2006 A DMITTING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 15,08,609. ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 WAS COMPLETED DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 33,90,232. WHILE FRAMING T HE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: I) DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA). II) DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION. III) DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN IV) ADDITION TOWARDS SUBODH INSTITUTE OF INSURANCE EDUCATION AND TRAINING ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE SHOWN AS PER TDS CERTIFICATE AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. I.T.A. NO. 1493/HYD/2011 SRI K. SUDHAKAR REDDY ==================== 2 4. AGAINST THIS THE ASSESSEE CARRIED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BELATEDLY BY 120 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE IS RUNNING AN EDUCATION AND TRAINING INSTITUTE AND DID NOT HAVE A NY EXPOSURE TO TAX MATTERS. HE HAS FURTHER STATED THAT HE DOES NO T EVEN KNOW THE DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER WAS SERVED ON HIM AND, THER EFORE, HE IS TAKING THE DATE OF SERVICE AS 31.12.2008. THE ASSE SSEE FURTHER STATED THAT MORE THAN 5 MONTHS AFTER SERVICE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON HIM I.E., 27.5.2009 HE DISCUSSED WITH HIS AUDITOR WHO ADVISED HIM THAT THE APPEAL CAN BE FILED. THEREAFT ER, HE MET MR. RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADVOCATE ON 28.5.2009 AND MR. RAO THEN PREPARED THE APPEAL PAPERS AND THE APPEAL WAS FILED FINALLY ON 8.6.2009. 5. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BY OB SERVING THAT THE FACTS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT VERIF IABLE AND ARE NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH WHAT IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. TH E APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 8.6.2009 WITHOUT THE NAME OF AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND WITHOUT GIVING ANY PO WER OF ATTORNEY TO ANY AR. THEREAFTER, ON 26.4.2011 A REQ UEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE LETTE RHEAD OF ONE MR. B. NARSING RAO & CO., CAS WHO WERE THE EARLIER ARS FOR THE ASSESSEE. FINALLY ON 17.5.2011, A REQUEST FOR ADJO URNMENT WAS RECEIVED SIGNED BY SRI V. RAGHAVENDRA RAO ALONG WIT H THE POWER OF ATTORNEY. IN THIS REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT, THE COU NSEL MR. V. RAGHAVENDRA RAO HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE VAKALAT HAS BEEN SENT TO HIM RECENTLY AND THAT THE LEARNED AR HAS YET TO OBTAIN APPEAL RECORD FROM THE ASSESSEE. 6. FURTHER, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ABOVE FACTS C LEARLY INDICATE THAT THE STORY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS AG AINST THE FACTS ON RECORD. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN A REGULAR ASSESSEE AND HAS BEEN FILING HIS INCOME TAX RETURNS THROUGH AN A UDITOR OF REPUTE, M/S. B. NARSINGA RAO & COMPANY. IT SPEAKS OF EXTREME I.T.A. NO. 1493/HYD/2011 SRI K. SUDHAKAR REDDY ==================== 3 CALLOUSNESS AND CARELESSNESS ON THE PART OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT HE DID NOT EVEN BOTHER TO NOTE THE DATE ON WHICH THE A SSESSMENT ORDER WAS SERVED ON HIM. THEREAFTER, HE CASUALLY W AITED FOR 5 MONTHS BEFORE SPEAKING TO HIS AUDITOR AND SHOWING H IM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FURTHER, IN HIS PETITION HE STAT ED THE WRONG FACTS THAT THE AUDITOR REFERRED HIM TO MR. RAGHAVEN DRA RAO, WHEN MR. RAGHAVENDRA RAO CAME INTO THE PICTURE IN 2011 O NLY. AGAINST THIS THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2006-07 ON 19.12.2008 AND THE APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON 8.6.2009 WITH A DELA Y OF 131 DAYS. AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SURE ABOUT THE DATE ON WHIC H THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS RECEIVED, THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IS TAKEN AS 31.12.2008 WORKING OUT THE DELAY AT 120 DAYS. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE PETITION FILED FOR CONDON ATION OF DELAY WAS NOT UNDERSTOOD BY THE CIT(A) IN PROPER PERSPECT IVE. THE FIRST REASON GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) FOR NOT CONDONING THE DE LAY IS THAT THE FACTS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT VERIFIABLE. IF THE FACTS ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A) WERE NOT VERIFIABLE THEN HE OUGHT TO HAVE PUT IT TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OR AT L EAST CALLED UPON THE APPELLANT TO SUBSTANTIATE THE REASONS GIVEN WITH DO CUMENTS OR BY AFFIDAVIT. SO THE ABOVE FINDING OF ID.CIT(A) IS DEV OID OF MERITS. 8. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A) NAME OF AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (SRI V.RAGHAVENDRA RAO, A DVOCATE) IS GIVEN IN THE APPEAL MEMO SO THE REASONS SUBMITTED F OR DELAY IS NOT CORRECT. IN THIS REGARD THE AR SUBMITTED THAT JUST BECAUSE NAME OF AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE IS NOT GIVEN IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GIVEN BRIEF TO SRI RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADVOCATE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THE ASSESS EE WAS FILING AN APPEAL IN INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, BY SEE ING THE APPEAL MEMO FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT CAN BE FAIRLY CONCL UDED THAT IT COULD I.T.A. NO. 1493/HYD/2011 SRI K. SUDHAKAR REDDY ==================== 4 HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. THE TRIBUNA L MAY KINDLY APPRECIATE THAT THE ID.CIT(A) HAS TAKEN A VERY PEDA NTIC VIEW OF THE MATTER. 9. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ADJOURNMENT PETITIONS WERE FILED BY OFFICE OF M/S. B. NARSING RAO & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS. HE SUBMITTED THAT TH E SAID OFFICE WERE THE AUDITORS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEY HAVE SUGGES TED THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE APPEAL GOT DONE THROUGH SRI V.RAGH AVENDRA RAO, ADVOCATE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED SRI V.RAGHA VENDRA RAO, ADVOCATE, HE DRAFTED THE APPEAL AND TOLD THE APPELL ANT TO FILE IT. SINCE IT WOULD TAKE COUPLE OF MONTHS FOR THE APPEAL TO BE HEARD BY THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO INFORM THE DA TE OF HEARING BY COUNSEL ON RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF HEARING. ACCORDINGL Y, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL FOR HIMSELF. LATER ON WHEN THE NOT ICE OF HEARING WAS RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF ID.CIT(A), THE APPE LLANT INFORMED HIS AUDITOR SRI B. NAGARSING RAO & CO., ABOUT THE SAME, FOR BEING APPRISED TO SRI V. RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADVOCATE. HOWEV ER, SINCE THE ASSESSMENT 'FILES AND OTHER RECORDS WERE AVAILABLE WITH M/S. B. NARSING RAO & CO., THEY THOUGHT THAT THEY WOULD PRE PARE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THEN SEND THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH T HE SAME TO SRI V.RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADVOCATE. JUST BECAUSE M/S. NARSING RAO & CO., FILED THE ADJOURNMENT PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ENGAG ED THE SERVICES OF SRI RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADVOCATE BY THAT TIME. SINCE B. NARSING RAO & CO., WERE AUDITORS OF ASSESSEE AND HAD REPRESENTED THE APPELLANT BEFORE ASSESSING OFFI CER, NO ABNORMALITY CAN BE READ INTO THE FACT THAT THEY REP RESENTED THE APPELLANT WHEN THE APPEAL WAS GIVEN TO SRI V. RAGHA VENDRA RAO ESPECIALLY WHEN THE SAID AUDITORS THEMSELVES SUGGES TED THE APPELLANT TO APPROACH SRI RAGHAVENDRA RAO. I.T.A. NO. 1493/HYD/2011 SRI K. SUDHAKAR REDDY ==================== 5 10. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT SRI RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADVOCATE FILED ADJOURNMENT PETITION SAYING THAT HE RECEIVED VAKALA T RECENTLY. IN THIS REGARD IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A FACT. BUT, THE PURPORT OF THE SAID COUNSEL IN THE PETITION FOR ADJOURNMENT IS THA T THOUGH HE DRAFTED THE APPEAL, HE RECEIVED VAKALAT FOR APPEARA NCE RECENTLY AND SO ALSO THE RECORDS WHICH ARE OTHERWISE WITH M/ S. B. NARSING RAO & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS. THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE ID.CIT(A) IS TOTALLY INCORRECT. 11. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING IS ON ACC OUNT OF SHEAR IGNORANCE OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS SUBMITTED T HAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT EARLIER, HE WAS IGNORANT OF REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO H IM ON RECEIPT OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS MOST HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT HAD THE CIT(A) WAS DOUBTFUL ABOUT THE VERACITY OF THE FACTS SUBMIT TED IN THE CONDONATION PETITION, HE OUGHT TO HAVE CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SAME INSTEAD RESORTING TO ASSUMPTIONS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUABLE RIGHT OF THE APPELLANT IS LOST ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE CIT(A) HAS TAKEN A MYOPIC AND PEDANTI C VIEW OF THE MATTER. THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD RELIES ON THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND AQUISITION V. M ST. KATIJI AND OTHERS (1987) 167 IT R 471 (SC). FROM THE ABOVE, ALL THE REASONING IN THE ABOVE JUDG EMENT APPLIES TO THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT GAIN BY FILING THE APPEAL BELATEDLY. IT IS SUBM ITTED THAT THE APPELLANT SHOULD NOT THROWN OUT OF COURT ON ACCOUNT OF INADEQUATE DRAFTING SKILLS SHOWN WHILE DRAFTING THE CONDONATIO N PETITION. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS EXCELLENT CASE ON MERITS IN AS MUCH AS THE ISSUES IN THE APPEAL MOST COVERED IN FA VOUR OF THE APPELLANT. THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL IS THAT THE ID .CIT(A) HAS ASSUMED CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE AND MALA FIDES AGAINST APPELLANT CONTRARY TO WHAT HAS BEEN SAID BY HON'BLE SUPREME C OURT, I.T.A. NO. 1493/HYD/2011 SRI K. SUDHAKAR REDDY ==================== 6 12. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT APPLYING THE PRINCIPL ES LAID BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE ABOVE CASE AND SO ALSO THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN T HE WP 6143 OF 1997 IN THE CASE OF SURYA GENERAL TRADERS DATED 31 ST MARCH, 1991. AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE APPELLANT DESERVES A LENIENT VIEW. 13. THE DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 14. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, IN THIS CASE THERE WAS A DELAY OF 120 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE DELAY AS FOLLOWS: 'THERE IS A DELAY OF 120 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL AS PER THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, IF WE TAKE THE DATE OF PAS SING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS THE SERVICE OF THE ORDER I.E., 1912.2008, THE DELAY WOULD BE 131 DAYS. THE APPELLANT STATED THAT HE IS RUNNING AN EDUCATION AN D TRAINING INSTITUTE AND DID NOT HAVE ANY EXPOSURE TO TAX MATTERS. HE HAS FURTHER STATED THAT HE DOES NOT EV EN KNOW THE DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER WAS SERVED ON HIM AND, THEREFORE, HE IS TAKING THE DATE OF SERVICE AS 31.12.2008. IT IS FURTHER STATED BY HIM THAT MORE THAN 5 MONTHS AFTER SERVICE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON H IM I.E., 27.5.2009 HE DISCUSSED WITH HIS AUDITOR WHO ADVISED HIM THAT THE APPEAL CAN BE FILED. THEREAFT ER, HE MET MR. RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADVOCATE ON 28.5.2009 AND MR. RAO THEN PREPARED THE APPEAL PAPERS AND THE APPEAL WAS FILED FINALLY ON 8.6.2009. 15. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ABOVE REASONS. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THOSE REASONS. THE REASONS A DVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS REASONABLE. THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FILING THE APPEAL BE LATEDLY. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR , LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI & ORS. (1987) 62 CTR (S C) 23 : (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN SUB STANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE PITTED AGA INST EACH OTHER, I.T.A. NO. 1493/HYD/2011 SRI K. SUDHAKAR REDDY ==================== 7 THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PRE FERRED, FOR THE OTHER SIDE CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE A VESTED RIGHT IN I NJUSTICE BEING DONE BECAUSE OF A NON-DELIBERATE DELAY. IN THIS CAS E AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR ARISING O UT OF A DECISION ENHANCING COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF ACQUI SITION OF LANDS FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE TO THE EXTENT OF NEARLY 14 LAK HS RUPEES BY MAKING AN UPWARD REVISION OF THE ORDER OF 800 PER C ENT WHICH ALSO RAISED IMPORTANT QUESTIONS AS REGARDS PRINCIPLES OF VALUATION WAS DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED BEING 4 DAYS BEYOND TIME B Y REJECTING AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. HENCE THE COL LECTOR OF LAND ACQUISITION FILED APPEAL BY SPECIAL LEAVE BEFORE TH E APEX COURT. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR ACCORDING A STEP-MOTHERLY TREATMENT WHEN THE STATE IS THE APP LICANT PRAYING FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. IN FACT EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT ON ACCOUNT OF AN IMPERSONAL MACHINERY AND THE INHERITED BUREA UCRATIC METHODOLOGY IMBUED WITH THE NOTE-MAKING, FILE-PUSHI NG, AND PASSING-ON-THE-BUCK ETHOS, DELAY ON ITS PART IS LES S DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND THOUGH MORE DIFFICULT TO APPROVE. IN ANY EVENT, THE STATE WHICH REPRESENTS THE COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF THE COMMUNITY, DOES NOT DESERVE LITIGANT NON-GRATA STATUS. THE COURTS, THEREFORE, HAVE TO BE INFORMED OF THE SPIRIT AND PHILOSOPHY OF THE PROVISION IN THE COURSE OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE EXPRESSION 'SUF FICIENT CAUSE. SO ALSO THE SAME APPROACH HAS TO BE EVIDENCED IN ITS A PPLICATION TO MATTERS AT HAND WITH THE END IN VIEW TO DO EVEN-HAN DED JUSTICE ON MERITS IN PREFERENCE TO THE APPROACH WHICH SETTLES A DECISION ON MERITS. ON FACTS IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE EXISTED SU FFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY. THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT DI SMISSING THE APPEAL BEFORE IT AS TIME-BARRED WAS SET ASIDE AND T HE DELAY OF 4 DAYS WAS CONDONED. 16. AS SEEN FROM THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT, THERE SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN CONDONING THE DELAY. THE COURT HAS TO EXERCISE THE DISCRETION ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE KEEPING IN MIND THAT IN I.T.A. NO. 1493/HYD/2011 SRI K. SUDHAKAR REDDY ==================== 8 CONSIDERING THE EXCEPTION SUFFICIENT CAUSE', THE P RINCIPLES OF ADVANCING SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS OF PRIME IMPORTANC E. ONE SHOULD DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A CASE WHERE THE DELAY IS INO RDINATE AND A CASE WHERE THE DELAY IS OF A FEW DAYS. THE LAW ASS ISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS . THE DELAY CANNOT BE CONDONED SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS N OT AWARE OF LAW WHICH CALLS FOR SYMPATHY OR MERELY OUT OF BENEV OLENCE TO THE PARTIES SEEKING RELIEF. IN CONDONING DELAY IT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND SHADOW OF DOUBT THAT REALLY THE ASSESSEE WAS DILIGENT AND NOT GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE WHATSOEVER. THE SUFFICIEN T CAUSE WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE LIMITATION PROVISIONS MUST BE A CAUSE WHICH IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PARTY INVOKING A ID OF THE PROVISIONS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE COUL D HAVE AVOIDED THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BY DUE CARE AND ATTE NTION AND NEGLIGENCE IS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT DO ES NOT REQUIRE LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF LIMITATIO N ACT SO AS TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. WE FIND NO JUSTIFIABL E REASON IN FILING THE APPEAL BELATEDLY BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE DELAY WAS CAUSED DUE TO NEGLIGENCE AND INACTION OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH CA NNOT BE CONSIDERED. IN OUR OPINION, THE CIT(A) TOOK PROPER STAND IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY. THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE AS SESSEE ON THE CASE-LAW CITED SUPRA MAY NOT BE MUCH HELD TO THE FA CTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND DISMISS THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE. 17. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH NOVEMBER, 2012. SD/ - (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 7 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 I.T.A. NO. 1493/HYD/2011 SRI K. SUDHAKAR REDDY ==================== 9 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SRI K. SUDHAKAR REDDY, C/O. M/S. B. NARSING RAO & C O., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, PLOT NO. 554, ROAD NO. 92, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD-96. 2. THE ASST. CIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), HYDERABAD. 3. THE CIT(A) - V, HYDERABAD. 4. THE CIT - IV, HYDERABAD. 5. THE DR A BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD. TPRAO