Mr. Man Singh Tosaria, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1820/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7020 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 04-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY VARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: AK SHARMA ADV SH VINOD NOMGAI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 145; 144

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. S.K.YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I TA NO . 1820 TO 1823/DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 19698 - 99 TO 2002 - 03 ) & ITA NO. 2562/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004 - 05) MAN SINGH TOSARI, 159/1, GAUTAM NAGAR, GUJJAR DAIRY, NEW DELHI PAN:AACPT8944J VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 12, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. AK SHARMA, ADV SH. VINOD NOMGAI, ADV REVENUE BY: SH. VIJAY VARMA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING 04/10/ 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08 / 10 /2016 O R D E R PER BENCH . 1. TH ESE ARE THE SIX APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A), NEW DELHI RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 2. ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS THE SAME WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN APPROVING THE ACTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 AND 145 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PART ADDITION OF RS. 194587/ - . 3. AY 1999 - 2000: - 1 ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS THE SAME WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN APPROVING THE ACTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 AND 145 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. PAGE 2 OF 4 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) W AS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PART ADDITION OF RS. 86180/ - . 4. AY 2000 - 01: - 1 ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS THE SAME WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN APPROVING THE ACTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 AND 145 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PART ADDITION OF RS. 131250/ - . 5. AY 2001 - 02: - 1 ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS THE SAME WAS BARR ED BY LIMITATION. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN APPROVING THE ACTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 AND 145 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PART ADDITION OF RS. 275680/ - . 6. AY 2002 - 03: - 1 ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DER AS THE SAME WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN APPROVING THE ACTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 AND 145 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PART ADDITION OF RS. 275680/ - . 7. AY 2004 - 05: - 1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A) IS ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED AND BAD IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 23000 00/ - ( RUPEES TWENTY THREE LAC ONLY). 8. ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME ALLOWED U/S 253(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE APPEALS FOR AY 1998 - 99 TO 2002 - 03 WERE FILED LATE BY 303 DAYS AND AY 2004 - 05 BY 93 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED CONDONATION APPLICATION DATED 01.04.2013 AND HAS LATER ON F ILED AFFIDAVIT DATED 03.08.2014. IN THE APPLICATION DATED 01.04.2013 THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS DIRECTOR OF VARIOUS COMPANIES OF SENIOR GROUP. THE PAGE 3 OF 4 SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON THE GROUP AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE IN 2003. CONSEQUENT TO THAT THE ASSESS MENT AND APPELLATE MATTERS WERE LOOKED AFTER BY THE GROUP ITSELF. ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) WAS RECEIVED ON 04.04.2012 BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUBSEQUENTLY, IT WAS HANDED OVER TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE SENIOR GROUP SO AS TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION IN THE MATTER. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT ON CASUAL VISIT ON 28.03.2013 THE ASSESSEE ENQUIRED ABOUT THE FATE OF HIS APPEAL AND WAS INFORMED THAT IT WAS NOT FILED. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE APPEALS WERE FILED ON 01.04.2013. IN THE AFFI DAVIT IT WAS FURTHER AFFIRMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE SHIFTED TO JAIPUR IN 2011. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS AN ACTION FROM ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING AGAINST THE COMPANY BY FILING THE FIR ON 06.05.2011 AND THEREFORE, THE COMPANY ALSO COULD NOT LOOK AFTE R THE WORK OF FILING OF APPEAL. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 20.12.2007 HAS DELETED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT WHEREIN THE FACTS ARE MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SALARIED EMPLOYEE. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT AS HE WAS UNDER THE BONA FILED BELIEF THAT APPEAL MUST HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. CONSEQUENTLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR DELAY WHICH MAY BE CONDONED. 9. THE LD DR VEHEM ENTLY OPPOSED THE APPLICATION OF CONDONATION OF DELAY SUBMITTING THAT THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 25.06.2007 WHEREIN IT IS AMPLY STATED THAT THE ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NON COOPERATIVE AND THEREFORE THE DELAY MAY NOT BE CONDONED AND THE ASSESSEE IS A HABITUAL DEFAULTER AND PERIOD OF DELAY IS VERY LONG. 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS WE ARE NOT CONVINCED WITH THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT FOR DELAY IN FILING OF THESE APPEALS AS ACCORDING TO US IT IS NOT A SUFFICIENT CAUSE. WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO APPRECIATE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL ASSESSMENTS AND APPEAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE LOOKED AFTER BY THE SENIOR GROUP. THE MAIN REASON FOR THIS IS THAT BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) THE ASS ESSEE HIMSELF REMAINED PRESENT AND ARGUED HIS APPEAL. THIS ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS WELL VERSED WITH THE APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS GOING ON AND CANNOT TAKE SHELTER UNDER THE GUISE OF THROWING RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FILING OF THE APPEAL ON THE GROUP INI WHICH HE IS A DIRECTOR. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE APPELLANT IS A LAWYER BY EDUCATION, PAGE 4 OF 4 THEREFORE, AN EXECUSE THAT AFTER HANDING OVER THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON 04.04.2012 HE FORGOT TO ENQUIRE ABOUT FILING OF THE APPEAL UP TO 28.03.2013. FURT HER THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT HE HAS SHIFTED TO JAIPUR, HOWEVER, IN THE APPEAL MEMO HE STILL MENTION THE ADDRESS OF DELHI IN COLUMN NO. 10 IN FORM NO. 36 . WHEN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) HAS BEEN PASSED ON 16.02.2012 WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE O N 04.04.2012 WHEN HE VISITED THE OFFICE OF THE LD CIT(A) TO COLLECT THE ORDER THIS ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE ABOUT THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE PROCEEDINGS DESPITE SO, BEING A L A WYER IT CANNOT BE BELIEVED THAT THE DELAY IS FOR SUFFICIENT CAUSE. FURTHERMORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED DELAY OF EACH DAY AND WE ALSO DO NOT SEE DUE CARE AND ATTENTION OR DUE DILIGENCE IN THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THIS THE APPLICATIONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF ALL THESE SIX APPEALS ARE REJECTED. 11. I N VIEW OF REJECTION OF APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALL THESE APPEALS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND HENCE, THEY ARE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 8 / 10 /2016 . - S D / - - S D / - ( S.K.YADAV ) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 0 8 / 10 / 2016 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI