Renuka Datla, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

ITA 182/Hyd/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Renuka Datla, who appealed against the orders of the CIT (A) for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18. The appeals were dismissed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal due to a significant delay in filing. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not provided sufficient evidence or reasonable cause for the delay, which was over 479 days. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's participation in other legal proceedings and her awareness of legal processes, concluding that the delay was not justified.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 129707 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2023
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 13

Judgement Text

ITA Nos.180 of 2023 Renuka Datla & Others Page 1 of 14 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-President AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos.180 to 185/Hyd/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2017-18 Smt Renuka Datla Hyderabad PAN:AFAPR2059D Vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle 1(3) Hyderabad (Appellant) PAN: (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate Revenue by: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 26/07/2023 Date of pronouncement: 27/07/2023 ORDER Per Bench: These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order dated 05.10.2021 of the learned CIT (A)-11, Hyderabad relating to A.Ys 2012-13 to 2017-18 on the following grounds: “1. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the order of the learned CIT(A) dismissing the appeal exparte is violative of principles of natural justice apart from being illegal and unsustainable in law. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have posted appeal within short span of time when the appellant's case is that the books and documents are seized by police. 2. The learned CIT(A) having dismissed the appeal on account of non compliance ought not to have again dealt the same on merits and dismissed the same on merits. ITA Nos.180 of 2023 Renuka Datla & Others Page 2 of 14 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions made by the AO with respect to credits in all amounting to Rs.2.19.97,746 in bank accounts of the Appellant with various banks. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to .appreciate that such credits were considered by the Appellant while filing her return of income and the additions were uncalled for”. 2. Similar grounds have been taken by the assessee in the remaining A.Ys. For the sake of convenience, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. ITA No.180/Hyd/2023 for the A.Y 2012-13 is taken as the lead case in this batch of appeals. 3. At the outset, the learned AR for the assessee submitted that there is delay in filing of the appeals before the Tribunal for a period of 301 days, for which the assessee has filed a condonation petition along with affidavit explaining the reasons for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated period. In the affidavit, it was mentioned as under: ITA Nos.180 of 2023 Renuka Datla & Others Page 3 of 14 ITA Nos.180 of 2023 Renuka Datla & Others Page 4 of 14 ITA Nos.180 of 2023 Renuka Datla & Others Page 5 of 14 ITA Nos.180 of 2023 Renuka Datla & Others Page 6 of 14 ITA Nos.180 of 2023 Renuka Datla & Others Page 7 of 14 ITA Nos.180 of 2023 Renuka Datla & Others Page 8 of 14 4. Firstly, it was submitted by the learned AR that after passing the order by the learned CIT (A), the draft appeal for all the A.Ys were sent by him to the appellant assessee in the month on 12 th February, 2022. However, the assessee has not responded to the same. The learned AR made two arguments viz., firstly it was presumed by the learned AR that the assessee might have approached another Counsel for the purpose of filing the appeals and secondly it was also his submission that the email might have gone to junk mail, and therefore, the assessee could not retrieve the appeal and hence there was delay in filing the appeals. Therefore, the present application for condonation of delay is filed. 5. The learned AR further submitted that the assessee was busy in contesting her matters before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the detailed chart of the proceedings/applications are placed on record at page 10 to 80. The learned AR submitted that given an opportunity, the assessee is having a prima facie case as ITA Nos.180 of 2023 Renuka Datla & Others Page 9 of 14 no incriminating material was found during the course of search and no assessment can be made in the hands of the assessee. 6. Per contra, the learned DR vehemently opposed the condonation petition and it was submitted that the assessee was throughout being callous, casual and negligent in pursuing the assessement proceedings/appellate proceedings/Tribunal. It was submitted that the assessee is not an ordinary person and President/Director in many prestigious pharmaceutical companies. She is also aware of the legal proceedings and intricacies thereof and the assessee in person has been filing cases before the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court. It was further submitted that the issue of condonation of delay is no more res integra and he relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts as well as the Tribunal. More particularly, he drew the attention of the Bench to the following decisions of the Tribunal passed under identical circumstances by the Tribunal: ITA Nos.180 of 2023 Renuka Datla & Others Page 10 of 14 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has decided the issue ex-parte since the assessee failed to participate in the assessment proceedings. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee challenged the order before the learned CIT (A) who granted 10 opportunities to the assessee which are clear from paragraph 6.1 of his order which reads as under: ITA Nos.180 of 2023 Renuka Datla & Others Page 11 of 14 7.1 Despite granting sufficient opportunities, the assessee failed to appear in the appellate proceedings for which the learned CIT (A) confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer based on the material available on record. In the present case, the order was passed by the learned CIT (A) on 5.10.2021 and the limitation to file the appeal expired within 60 days from the date of receipt of the appellate order. However, the submission made by the learned AR in the month of Feb. 2022 whereby the learned AR asked the assessee to sent back the unsigned copy of the appeal. In our view no steps have been taken by the assessee or by the AR after 12 th Feb. 2022 to file appeal within the stipulated time. The plea of the learned Counsel for the assessee that the email has gone to junk mail has no legs to stand as the assessee has not filed any evidence corroborating the above stand. Further the assessee has not shown from record that any efforts were made for filing of the appeal after Feb. 2022. It is the duty of the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time provided under the Act unless the assessee is prevented by a reasonable cause from filing of the appeal in time. In the present case, the assessee has failed to give any reason much less the reasonable cause which prevented the assessee to file appeal before the Tribunal. The plea raised by the assessee that the assessee was busy in Hon'ble Supreme Court is required to be noted for the purpose of rejecting the same. Merely, because the assessee was busy in contesting her matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is no ground to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. In the present case more than 479 days have already been lapsed after passing of the impugned order on 5.10.2021 and the appeal was filed by the assessee in March, 2023. Undoubtedly during the period of October, 2021 to March, 2023, the assessee has been participating before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in contesting her ITA Nos.180 of 2023 Renuka Datla & Others Page 12 of 14 matters without any impediment or disability. However, for the reasons best known to her, the assessee has not filed the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee was well aware of her right being highly educated and qualified person and also happens to be the Director of various medical companies and infrastructure companies. In our view, the onus is on the assessee to prove that the assessee has a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time by supporting cogent evidence. In the present case after examining the documents on record, we are of the opinion that the assessee miserably failed to prove her case for a reasonable cause not to file the appeals in time. In the light of the above, we do not find any merit in the application of condonation of delay. Though, a part of the period of delay, is covered by the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued on account of pandemic, however, the assessee was required to explain each day of delay of the remaining period of 301 days. It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee during the earlier period was also before the various Courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7.2 We may also rely upon the decision cited by the learned DR where we have in the case of Vishwabharati Mutually Aided Cooperative Credit Society Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA Nos 360 to 364/Hyd/2022 for the A.Ys 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2013-14 to 2015-16 dated 13.02.2023 wherein the Tribunal in Para 14 & 15 held as under: “14. Further, the assessee's reasons in the condonation petition do not come under .reasonable cause. as prescribed under the Act, for condonation of delay and the explanation given by the assessee for delay is not proper and casual in nature. The reasons given by the assessee are devoid of any merit and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The law requires the assessee to be vigilant and careful in prosecuting its rights under the Act. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the assessee, ITA Nos.180 of 2023 Renuka Datla & Others Page 13 of 14 we do not find any reason to entertain the present appeal as the same is barred by limitation. 15. We also draw strength from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi and others (Civil Appeal No.7696 of 2021 dt.16.12.2021 relied upon by the ld.DR, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the condonation petition. The facts of this case are identical to the facts of the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court at Para 6.2 had reproduced the facts of the case to the following effect : "6.2 We have gone through the averments in the application for the condonation of delay. There is no sufficient explanation for the period from 15.03.2017 till the Second Appeal was preferred in the year 2021. In the application seeking condonation of delay it was stated that she is aged 45 years and was looking after the entire litigation and that she was suffering from health issues and she had fallen sick from 01.01.2017 to 15.03.2017 and she was advised to take bed rest for the said period. However, there is no explanation for the period after 15.03.2017. Thus, the period of delay from 15.03.2017 till the Second Appeal was filed in the year 2021 has not at all been explained. Therefore, the High Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously." In our view, the facts of the present appeal are identical rather situated in a worse footing than that of the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao (supra). Hence, the ld.CIT(A) was right in dismissing the condonation application and the appeal of the assessee. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the finding of ld.CIT(A) and accordingly, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. We have not discussed the other decisions cited by the ld.DR, mentioned hereinabove as the decision in the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao (supra) was latest in time. Further, the decisions referred by the ld.AR were all prior to the decision in the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao (supra) and are distinguishable on facts.” 7.3 In view of the above discussions, the condonation petition is dismissed. As a sequence thereof, the appeal filed by the assessee is also dismissed being barred by limitation. ITA Nos.180 of 2023 Renuka Datla & Others Page 14 of 14 7.4 In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27 th July, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (R.K. PANDA) VICE-PRESIDENT (LALIET KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 27 th July, 2023. Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Smt. Renuka Datla, C/o Shri A.V. Raghuram, Flat No.620, Babukhan Estate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 500001 2 Dy.CIT, Central Circle, 1(3) Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 3 Pr.CIT Central, Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order