Devender Singh Randhawa, Uttrakhand V. ITO, Uttrakhand

ITA 1589/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3824 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-06-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H K LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L.SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO: 1589/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SH. DEVENDER SINGH RANDHAWA VS. ITO, RUDRAPUR 15, HIG, AVAS VIKAS RUDRAPUR (UDHAM SINGH NAGAR). (APPELLANT) (RESPOND ENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SRI HK LAL, D.R. O R D E R PER C.L.SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 25.8.2008 PASSED BY THE LDCIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) BY T HE A.O. FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05. 2. IT HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE REGISTRY THAT THIS APPE AL IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 610 DAYS. 2 3. IN THIS CONNECTION THE ASSESEE HAS SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WHICH READ S AS UNDER. THE APPELLANT HEREIN HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25 TH AUGUST, 2008 IN A.NO. 126/RDP/2006-07 PASSED BY TH E LD.CIT(A)-II, DEHRADUN DISMISSING THE APPELLANTS APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) DATED 29.12.2006 FOR A.Y. 2004-05 WHEREB Y THE ITO, RUDRAPUR HAS ASSESSED THIS APPELLANT TO A TAX OF RS. 2,55,40 6/- ON AN INCOME OF RS. 6,31,274/-. THE ORDER DATED 25.8.2008 OF THE LDCIT(A)-II WAS RE CEIVED SOMETIME IN THE FIRST WEEK OF SEPTEMBER, 2008 AND THE APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LATEST BY THE END OF OCTOBER, 2008 OR 25.10.2008. THIS APPELLANT WAS ADVISED BY THE PREVIOUS TAX CON SULTANT WHO HAD BEEN DEALING WITH THE MATTER BEFORE THE A.O. AND TH E CIT(A) THAT THE ORDER DT. 25.8.2008 HAD BECOME FINAL AND NO FURTHER REMED Y WAS AVAILABLE. THEREFORE, THIS APPELLANT DEPOSITED THE TAX ASSESSE D AND SAT OVER THE MATTER CURSING HIS OWN FATE. IN THE MEANWHILE THIS APPELLANT ALSO WENT AWAY TO CANADA TO MEET HIS DAUGHTER AND WAS AWAY FOR SEVERAL MONTHS. THE ORDER DT. 30.3.2010 OF THE ITO, RUDRAPUR IMPOS ING A PENALTY OF RS. 1,75,00/- U/S 271(1)(C) FOR ALLEGED CONCEALMENT OF INCOME TAX HAS NOW COME AS A FRESH SHOCK AND THE APPELLANT DECIDED TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE YOUR HONOURS. THIS APPELLANT HAS BEEN ADVISED THAT THE HONBLE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAS WIDE POWERS TO CONDONE THE DELAY ON SO ME VALID GROUNDS. THE DELAY IN FILING THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN DUE MAINL Y TO THE WRONG ADVISE FROM THE PREVIOUS TAX ADVISOR. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY PRAYS THAT TH IS HONBLE TRIBUNAL BE VERY KINDLY PLEASED TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 610 TO 615 DAYS AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR A DECISION ON MERITS. THE APPELLANT SHALL BE HIGHLY OBLIGED FOR THE KIND NESS. 3 SUBMITTED FOR A SYMPATHETIC CONSIDERATION PLEASE, THANKING YOU, YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- (DEVENDER SINGH RANDHAWA) ASSESSEE/APPELLANT 15 HIG, AVAS VIKAS, RUDRAPUR IDENTICAL AVERMENTS HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE I N AN AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PER USED THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. T HE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS DATED 25.8.2008. THIS A PPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE LATEST BY THE END OF OCT OBER, 2008 AS SO STATED BY THE ASSESEE IN THE APPLICATION. THE ASSESSEE HA S STATED THAT HE WAS ADVISED BY HIS PREVIOUS TAX CONSULTANT THAT THE ORD ER OF LDCIT(A) HAD BECOME FINAL AND NO FURTHER REMEDY WAS AVAILABLE BU T IN SUPPORT THEREOF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE EITHER A CL ARIFICATION FROM THE TAX CONSULTANT OR BY ANY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES. THE ASSESSEE WAS REPRESENTED BY ONE SHRI PROMOD KUMAR, C.A. BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). THE PROVISION OF FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LDCIT(A) IS NOT A MATTER OF RECENT AMENDMENT BUT IS IN EXIST ENCE SINCE LONG FROM THE VERY INCEPTION OF THE ACT ITSELF. HAVING REGAR D TO THE COMMON KNOWLEDGE AND THE HUMAN PROBABILITY, IT IS HARDLY B ELIEVABLE THAT A C.A. WOULD SAY OR ADVISE THAT NO APPEAL LIES AGAINST THE ORDER OF LDCIT(A). THIS STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS TOTALLY UNBELIEVABLE AND CANNOT BE ACCEPTED EVEN BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION. FURTHER THE AS SESEE HAS STATED IN 4 THE AFFIDAVIT THAT HE HAS NOW BEEN ADVISED BY SOME OTHER TAX ADVISER THAT APPEAL WOULD LIE TO THE TRIBUNAL, BUT HE HAS NOT ME NTIONED THE NAME OF THAT SOME TAX ADVISER WHO ADVISED THE ASSESSEE TO F ILE THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AFTER RECEIVING THE ORDER OF PENALTY DT. 30.3.2010 LEVIED BY THE A.O. THE SUBMISSIONS IN THIS REGARD ARE VAGUE AND NOT SPECIFIC. NAME OF THE NEW TAX ADVISER OR THE CIRCU MSTANCES UNDER WHICH HE ADVISED THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. TH E ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT EXPLAINED AS TO WHEN HE HAD GONE TO CANADA TO M EET HIS DAUGHTER AND FOR HOW MANY MONTHS HE WAS AWAY FROM THE STATIO N. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN ANY SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE FOR SUC H A LONG DELAY OF 610 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE , THEREFORE, REJECT THE ASSESEES APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN F ILING THE APPEAL AND DISMISS THIS APPEAL AS TIME BARRED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS TIME BARRED. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IMMEDIATELY AFTER CON CLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 9.6.2010. (A.K. GARODIA ) (C.L.SETHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: JUNE, 2010 *MANGA 5 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2. RESPONDENT; 3. CIT; 4. CIT(A); 5. DR; 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR // C O P Y //