Smt. Premalatha Pagaria, Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Bangalore

ITA 1800/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2767 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Revised return
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1800/Bang/2016 Assessment year : 2009-10 Mrs. Premlatha Pagaria, No.768, 17 th “A” Main, 6 th Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru – 560 010. PAN: AEOPP 2186C Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2), Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri K.Y. Ningoji Rao, CA Respondent by : Shri D.K. Jha, JCIT(DR) Date of hearing : 26.12.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 23.02.2017 O R D E R This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of CIT(Appeals) inter alia on the following grounds:- “1. The impugned order is liable to set aside in so far as the same is illegal, unlawful, improper, irregular and opposed to law and facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax erred in upholding the assessment of the Appellant's Total Income made by the Assessing Officer ignoring the particulars of income declared in Part-B- TI and Schedule -BP of the ITR-4 filed by the Appellant. 3. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax erred in upholding the impugned assessment made by the Assessing ITA No.1800/Bang/2016 Page 2 of 4 Officer disregarding the fact that the Return of Income filed by the Appellant was defective in so far as the particulars filed in Part-A-P & L of the ITR-4 did not tally with Part-B-TI and Schedule -BP of the ITR-4 and that the AO was duty bound to give an opportunity to the Appellant to rectify the said defects in terms of Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax erred in upholding the impugned assessment made by the Assessing Officer disregarding the fact that the Assessing Officer failed in his duty to cause compliance with the duty cast upon him u/s 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax erred in dismissing the appellant's appeal holding that the appeal of the appellant is not maintainable on the ground that the Appellant did not resort to filing the Revised Return of Income though she had time to do so. 6. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax erred in holding that the reasons adduced by the Appellant for the delay caused as not convincing and thus dismissing the appeal of the appellant disregarding the facts of the case. 7. That the impugned levy of interest of Rs.18,210/- u/s 234B is liable to set aside in so far as the appellant is not liable there for. 8. That the impugned levy of interest of Rs.4,462/- u/s 234C is liable to set aside in so far as the appellant is not liable there for.” 2. It has also been noticed that the appeal is filed late by 310 days for which an application for condonation of delay is filed stating therein that the assessee has handed over the papers to her Authorised Representative, but he did not prepare the appeal. As and when she came to know about the non-filing of appeal, she contacted the other counsel and got the present appeal filed. But in this regard, no evidence is filed on record. It is ITA No.1800/Bang/2016 Page 3 of 4 also evident from the record that before the CIT(Appeals) also, the appeal was filed late by 564 days which was not duly explained by the assessee and the CIT(Appeals) was forced to dismiss the appeal being barred by limitation. Even before the Tribunal also, the assessee did not file the appeal in time. Therefore, the ld. DR contended that the appeal be dismissed being barred by limitation. 3. I have carefully examined the orders of lower authorities in the light of rival submissions. I find that the assessee is a habitual defaulter as she has not filed the appeal in time either before the CIT(Appeals) or before the Tribunal. The appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was late by 564 days which was not duly explained. Having realized that she has filed the appeal late before the CIT(Appeals), she did not make any effort to file the appeal before the Tribunal in time. No fresh evidence is filed with regard to non- filing of appeal by the ld. Authorized Representative. If the Authorised Representative has not discharged his duties in time, it amounts to professional misconduct, for which the assessee ought to have lodged a complaint before the Competent Authority in order to justify his act. But, nothing was done. Therefore, the story propounded by the assessee cannot be believed. Since the assessee is a habitual defaulter, she deserves no concession by the authorities. I am therefore of the view that it is a fit case where the condonation of delay in filing of the appeal can be denied. Accordingly, I decline to condone the delay in filing of appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed being barred by limitation. ITA No.1800/Bang/2016 Page 4 of 4 4. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 23 rd day of February, 2017. Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 23 rd February, 2017. / D esai Smurthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.