Sandhya Industrial Chemicals, Sarigam V. The ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi

ITA 1624/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2283 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S R MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: A GOPALAKRISHNAN
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 271(1)(c); 273B

Judgement Text

SANDHYA INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS V. ACIT-VAPI /I.T.A. NO.1624/AHD/2014/A.Y.:07-08 PAGE 1 OF 4 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT . . , . . , BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . . ./ I.T.A NO.1624/AHD/2014/SRT / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-08 M/S. SANDHYA INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS, PLOT NO. 2809/2810 SARIGAM GIDC, VAPI PAN: ABHFS 7151G VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -VAPI APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY SHRI A. GOPALAKRISHNAN, CA /REVENUE BY SHRI S.R. MEENA, SR. D.R. / DATE OF HEARING: 08.08.2018 /PRONOUNCEMENT ON 30.08.2018 /O R D E R PER O. P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - VALSAD (IN SHORT THE CIT (A)) DATED 03.03.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. GROUND NO. 1 STATES THAT THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE REASON AS POINTED OUT BY THE APPELLANT FOR DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL AS SUFFICIENT CAUSE DENIED ADMITTED THE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION. THE ACTION OF THE CIT (A) IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE APPELLANT. 3. SHORT FACTS REVEALS FROM APPEAL ORDER ARE THAT THE PENALTY ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 01.07.2010 BUT IT WAS MISPLACED BY STAFF HENCE, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT FILE APPEAL WITHIN TIME. THUS, THERE WAS DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE CIT SANDHYA INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS V. ACIT-VAPI /I.T.A. NO.1624/AHD/2014/A.Y.:07-08 PAGE 2 OF 4 (A) BY 67 DAYS. ACCORDINGLY, A REQUEST WAS MADE TO CONDONE THE DELAY. HOWEVER, CIT (A) OBSERVED THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT TO SHOW THAT WHO WERE THE STAFF MEMBER HAD MISPLACED THE ORDER. NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT AN AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO TO ISSUE A DUPLICATE COPY OF THE ORDER TO ENABLE HIM TO FILE APPEAL IN TIME. IN NORMAL COURSE, THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE MOVED AN APPLICATION TO THE AO FOR ISSUANCE OF A DUPLICATE. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SHOWN ANY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL. THE CIT (A) HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF VINOD KUMAR [1982] 2 ITD 606(DELHI), AN MARFATIA HUF [1982] 2 ITD 631(BOM). MUNICIPAL BOARD [1951] 19 ITR 63 (ALL) K. PRABHAKAR RAO [2011] 128 ITD 263 (BANG). ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL AS BOOK RESULTS DECLARED BY LIMITATION. 4. BEING, AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (THE LD. A.R.) THE PENALTY ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 01.07.2010 BUT IT WAS MISPLACED BY STAFF HENCE, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT FILE APPEAL WITHIN TIME. THUS, THERE WAS DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE CIT (A) BY 67 DAYS. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM EXPLAINING THE DELAY WAS OCCURRED DUE TO STAFF HAS MISPLACED THE ORDER. HENCE, IT WAS REQUESTED THAT CIT (A) BE DIRECTED TO CONDONE THE DELAY. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SR. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT THE COURTS ARE QUASI- JUDICIAL BODIES AND ARE EMPOWERED TO CONDONE THE DELAY IF THE LITIGANT SATISFIES THE COURT THAT THERE WERE SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR THE AVAILING THE REMEDY AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE SANDHYA INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS V. ACIT-VAPI /I.T.A. NO.1624/AHD/2014/A.Y.:07-08 PAGE 3 OF 4 LIMITATION. SUCH A REASONING SHOULD BE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT. THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE OR REASON AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (5) OF SECTION 253, SUBSECTION (3) OF SECTION 249 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IS USED IN IDENTICAL TERMS IN THE LIMITATION ACT AND THE CPC. SUCH EXPRESSION HAS ALSO BEEN USED IN UNDER SECTION 273B OF THE ACT, 1961. THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 5 OF LIMITATION ACT AS WELL AS A SIMILAR OTHER PROVISIONS AND THE AMBIT OF EXERCISE OF POWERS THEREUNDER HAVE BEEN SUBJECT MATTER OF CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE HONOURABLE APEX COURT ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS. IN THE CASE OF THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. ADMINISTRATOR, HOWRAH MUNICIPALITY, AIR 1972 SC 749 , THE HON`BLE SUPREME COURT, WHILE CONSIDERING THE SCOPE OF THE EXPRESSION OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, HAS HELD THAT THE SAID EXPRESSION SHOULD RECEIVE A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION SO AS TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WHEN NO NEGLIGENCE OR INACTION OR WANT OF BONAFIDE IS IMPUTABLE TO THE PARTY. IN EVERY CASE OF DELAY, THERE MIGHT BE SOME OMISSIONS OF NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE MAXTOR MIND SUCH OMISSIONS/NEGLIGENCE HAS TO BE WEIGHED IN THE LIGHT OF EXIST CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE FACTS AND JUDGEMENTS, IF WE EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF PENALTY WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 01.07.2010. HOWEVER, THE STAFF MISPLACED IT; THEREFORE, THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED IN TIME BEFORE CIT (A). WE FIND THAT CIT (A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW WHICH STAFF HAS MISPLACED THE ORDER AND WHAT EFFORT WERE MADE TO GET DUPLICATE ORDER FROM THE AO. NO AFFIDAVIT OF STAFF WHO MISPLACED WAS FILED. IT WAS THE DUTY CAST ON THE ASSESSEE TO LOOK AFTER HER AFFAIRS SANDHYA INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS V. ACIT-VAPI /I.T.A. NO.1624/AHD/2014/A.Y.:07-08 PAGE 4 OF 4 AND VIGILANT FOR PROCEEDINGS AGAINST IT. THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER WAS MISPLACED BY STAFF IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY AFFIDAVIT FROM ITS STAFF. THUS, THERE IS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING APPEAL WITHIN TIME ALLOWED BY STATUTE. THEREFORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY REASON IN NOT ACCEPTING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO ILLEGALITY IS FOUND IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A) HENCE, IT IS UPHELD. CONSEQUENTLY, THE GROUND NO. 1 OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. SINCE, WE HAVE UPHELD THE FINDING OF CIT (A), HENCE, GROUND NO. 2 RELATED TO MERIT OF LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS NOT BEING ADJUDICATED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 8. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30-08-2018. SD/- SD/- ( . . /C.M. GARG) ( . . /O.P.MEENA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30 TH AUG, 2018/OPM / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) THE CIT(A)4. / PR. CIT 5. , / D.R. (ITAT) 6. / GUARD FILE ITAT. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, SURAT