Shri. Arvind Mangilal Jain, Bengaluru V. Income-Tax, Officer, Ward-5(1)(3), Bengaluru

ITA 180/BANG/2022

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shri Arvind Mangilal Jain against the order of the CIT(A)-5, Bengaluru, which dismissed his earlier appeal due to non-prosecution. The original assessment order was passed on 22.12.2017, and the assessee had entrusted the filing of the appeal to his CA, who failed to appear in the proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the appeal in 2018. The assessee only became aware of the dismissal in January 2022 when contacted by the Assessing Officer (AO) for recovery of an outstanding demand. Subsequently, the assessee engaged a new advocate and filed an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay, which was contested by the revenue based on the Supreme Court's decision emphasizing the need for substantiating the delay with cogent reasons.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 299862 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-11-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Majji Sannemma Vs. Reddy Sridevi & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.7696/2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC -C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA No.180/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri. Arvind Mangilal Jain, No.11, 1 st Floor, Chinnu Building, D S Lane, Chickpet, Bengaluru – 560 002. PAN : ACOPJ 3142 L Vs.The ITO, Ward – 5(1)(3), Bengaluru. APPELLANTRESPONDENT Assessee by:Shri. Balram R. Rao, Advocate Revenue by :Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale,Standing Counsel Date of hearing:21.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement:23.11.2022 O R D E R This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-5, Bengaluru, dated 26.06.2018, relating to Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There is a delay of about 582 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. It has been stated in the affidavit filed by the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeal that the assessee entrusted the filing of appeal before CIT(A) against the Order of Assessment dated 22.12.2017 to Chartered Accountant (CA) with instructions to file the appeal. The affidavit is silent with regard to the date on which the papers were handed over to the CA. It appears that the assessee did not contact the CA till the AO contacted the assessee in January 2022 for recovery of outstanding demand and when he informed that the Assessee that the Assessee’s appeal before CIT(A) has been dismissed. Thereafter the ITA No.180/Bang/2022 Page 2 of 3 assessee came to know that his CA filed an appeal before the CIT(A) but did not appear before for proceedings before the CIT(A) and therefore the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on 26.06.2018. Thereafter, the assessee contacted his CA and he was also not aware of the fact that the appeal was dismissed. The CA informed the assessee that due to inadvertent error and unintentional oversight, he did not appear before the CIT(A) and the appeal came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the assessee contacted the present Advocate in February 2022 and filed the appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. It is in these circumstances that the assessee has prayed that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. 3. Learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the plea of the assessee as contained in the affidavit for condonation of delay. Learned DR opposed the prayer of the assessee for condoning delay in filing the appeal and brought to our notice the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Majji Sannemma Vs. Reddy Sridevi & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.7696/2021 dated 16.10.2021. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case has emphasized the need for the appellant to substantiate with cogent reasons for the delay. 4. I find that the Assessment Order was passed on 22.12.2017 and the papers must have been handed over to the CA for filing appeal before the CIT(A) in January 2018. It is hard to believe that till January 2022 assessee did not make any enquiry with the CA about the fate of his appeal. It is even more surprising, when it is said that even the CA did not know that the appeal was listed before CIT(A) and was dismissed for non-prosecution. From the affidavit, it appears that it is only the AO who informed the assessee in January, 2022, that the assessee’s appeal before CIT(A) was dismissed. It is thus clear that there has been clear lack of diligence on the ITA No.180/Bang/2022 Page 3 of 3 part of the assessee and therefore the delay in filing the appeal cannot be accepted as owing to reasonable cause. Hence, I refuse to condone the delay in filing the appeal and dismiss the appeal as unadmitted. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as unadmitted. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) Sd/- (N. V. VASUDEVAN) Accountant MemberVice President Bangalore, Dated: 23.11.2022. /NS/* Copy to: 1.Appellants2.Respondent 3.CIT4.CIT(A) 5.DR 6. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.