Potluri Venkata Nageswara Rao, Vijayawada V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Vijayawada

ITA 191/VIZ/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0294 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2021
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 54F

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीऱीयअधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ, विशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री द ु व्ि ू रु आर एऱ रेड्डी, न्याययक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बाऱाक ृ ष्णन, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.191/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Potluri Venkata Nageswara Rao (HUF), Vijayawada. PAN: AAOHP 2167 F Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Vijayawada. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Sri C. Subrahmanyam प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Sri SPG Mudaliar, Sr. AR स ु नवधई की तधरीख / Date of Hearing : 09/06/2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 08/07/2022 O R D E R PER S. BALAKRISHNAN, Accountant Member : This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Vijayawada in ITA No. 10238/CIT(A)/VJA/2018-19, dated 16/10/2019 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the AY 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in his appeal: 2 “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and f acts in sustaining the addition made by AO towards higher indexed cost of acquisition without any basis or evidence. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in both law and facts in not allowing deduction of Rs. 28,95,643/- u/s 54F, though the assessee complied with the provisions of section 54F by investing sale proceeds of capital assets in residential property, in the name of the member of f amily. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and f acts in not allowing deduction of Rs. 28,95,643/- U/s. 54F though the Assessee complied with the provisions of section 54F by investing sale proceeds of capital assets in residential property in the name of his legal heir. 4. Pray to allow any other ground raised during the course of hearing of appeal.” 3. At the time of hearing before us the Ld. AR submitted that there is a delay of 673 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed a petition along with affidavit seeking condonation of delay. The assessee has explained the reasons for delay are extracted here under: “..... My Tax Consultant is a respectable gentleman of around 75 years plus. Due to covid the audit office remained closed for long time. Also due to health issues of his son, the tax consultant was not in office duties for long time and could not attend to his duties. I came to know from his office that they have lost track of some of the time schedules of files due to covid and also due to hectic activity af ter their office opened and missed the filing dates of some of the client files. Also I bring to your kind perusal that the state was under lock down and people were having restricted movements. Also, I am informed that the coordinating audit office was closed for quite some time as the consultant is advised isolation and was doing limited works and missed filing due dates. The filing could not be done in time and pray the Hon’ble Tribunal to condone the delay. ............ ............” 3 4. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal is beyond the control of the assessee and therefore taking a lenient view the delay of 673 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal may be condoned and admitted for adjudication of the appeal on merits. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that the delay of 673 days involved in this appeal and the reason given by the assessee does not constitute ‘sufficient cause’. He further submitted that the assessee is not interested in pursuing its appeal otherwise he would have followed up the matter effectively and the huge delay could have been avoided. Therefore, he prayed that the delay should not be condoned on the reasons given by the assessee. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record and the affidavit filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay. It is apparent from the record that there is a huge delay of 673 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. On perusal of the petition filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for such delay, we are of the considered opinion, the reasons advanced by the assessee do not constitute a ‘reasonable / 4 sufficient cause’ for filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit. It is settled principle that each case of the delay it has to be examined on its individual merits and jurisprudence does not extent to accommodating and condoning all inordinate delays. As per section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, any appeal or any application, .................may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. It implies that the delay of each day needs to be justified and there must be sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal which is lacking in the instant case. Therefore, in the instant case, in our considered opinion, since there is no valid reason for filing the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit and with a delay of 673 days, we hereby reject the condonation of delay and accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on the 08 th July, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (द ु व्ि ू रु आर.एऱ रेड्डी) (एस बाऱाक ृ ष्णन) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) न्याययकसदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 08.07.2022 5 OKK - SPS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. ननधधाररती/ The Assessee – Potluri Venkata Nageswara Rao (HUF), 3/226, Brahmaiah Residency, Gandhi Bomma Centre, Kanuru, Vijayawada-520007. 2. रधजस्व/The Revenue – Income Tax Officer, 40-6-15, Near Hotel Sree Square Mogulrajapuram, Tikkle Road, 1 st Lane, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh – 520001. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada. 4. आयकर आय ु क्त (अऩीऱ)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada. 5. ववभधगीय प्रनतननधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ववशधखधऩटणम/ DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6. गधर्ा फ़धईऱ / Guard file आदेशधन ु सधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam