R.Saroja Devi, Thanjavur V. ITO Ward 1(1), Thanjavur

ITA 1924/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0889 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K MEENAKSHISUNDARAM ITP
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

, SMC , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A SMC BENCH : CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.1923,1924,1925 & 1926/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1995-96, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 SMT.R.SAROJA DEVI, 14,KRISHNAN KOIL STREET, 2 ND STREET, MANAMBU CHAVADI, THANJAVUR.613 001. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), THANJAVUR, [PAN AOXPS 6970 A ] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM,ITP /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.SAGADEVAN,JCIT, D.R ! '# / DATE OF HEARING : 19 - 1 1 - 201 8 $% ! '# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 - 1 1 - 201 8 / O R D E R ALL THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAIN ST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS)-2 IN ITA NOS.618,619,620 & 621/2006-07/CIT(A)-2/TRY DATED 3 0.03.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995-96, 1997-98, 1998-99, 199 9-2000. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS THE SAME INDIVIDUAL IN ALL THESE AP PEALS, THEY ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CO NVENIENCE. ITA NOS.1923 TO 1926/CHNY/2018 :- 2 -: 2. SHRI K.MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI B.SAGADEVAN REPRESENTED ON BEHAL F OF THE REVENUE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. A.R THAT ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DELAYED BY 374 DA YS FOR WHICH ASSESSEE HAS FILED PETITIONS FOR CONDONATION OF DEL AY WHEREIN IT IS MENTIONED AS FOLLOWS:- I, R.SAROJA DEVI W/O.A.K.RAJARAMAN,AGED ABOUT 55 Y EARS HINDU AND RESIDING AT 14,KRISHNAN KOVIL IIND STREET, MANABUCH AVADI,THANJAVUR SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND STATE ON OATH THAT I AM AN ASSE SSEE IN PAN NO.AOXPS 6970A WITH THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD ( 1),THANJAVUR. I HAVE RECEIVED A COMMON APPELLATE ORDER FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEARS 1995-96,1997-98, 1998-99 AND 1999-2000 FROM THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2,TIRUCHIRAPALLI ON 5/4/201 7 ON APPEALS FILED BY ME FOR THESE YEARS. I OUGHT TO HAVE FILED AN APP EAL BEFORE THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL UPON THE COMMON ORDER ON OR BEF ORE 4/6/2017. I COULD FILE AN APPEAL FOR THESE YEARS ONLY ON 13/6 /2018 AFTER A DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BY 374 DAYS. THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL ARE ATTRIBUTED TO THE FOLLOWING U NFAVOURABLE CIRCUMSTANCES. FROM JANUARY 2017 ONWARDS I HAVE BEEN UNDERGOING UN TOLD SUFFERINGS IN MY DOMESTIC SIDE. MY SECOND DAUGHTER WHO IS WORKING AS ASSISSTANT PROFESSOR IN ANNAI THERESA COLLEGE KO DAIKANAL IN COMMERCE IS HAVING A NIGHTMARISH MARRIED LIFE. SHE MARRIED OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY WITH AN INTER CASTE MAN. THE HUSBAND HAD BEEN TORTURING MY DAUGHTER AFTER A HONEYMOON PERIOD OF 1 00 DAYS. UNABLE TO BEAR THE CRUELTY INFLICTED UPON HER BY TH E HUSBAND SHE ITA NOS.1923 TO 1926/CHNY/2018 :- 3 -: HAD FILED A DIVORCE SUIT AGAINST THE HUSBAND. SHE H AD GIVEN BIRTH TO A GIRL CHILD AND ON ACCOUNT OF HER EMPLOYMENT DIFFI CULTIES ON ONE SIDE AND THE CRUELTY FROM THE HUSBAND FROM ANOTHER SIDE I HAVE TO LIVE WITH HER FOR TAKING CARE OF THE CHILD AND ALSO PROTECT HER FROM THE CRUELTY OF HER HUSBAND. THE COLD CLIMATE IN KOD AIKANAL HAD AFFECTED MY HEALTH AND I AM NOT ABLE TO MOVE ABOUT FREELY. I HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF THE CHILD AND ALSO I HAVE TO TAKE C ARE OF MY HEALTH. I HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF THE HOUSE HOLD OF MY DAUGHTER. I HAVE BEEN PASSING THROUGH A TOUGH PERIOD IN LIFE AND THERE IS NO END IN SIGHT FOR THE DIFFICULTIES OF MYSELF AND MY DAUGHTER AND GRAND CHILD. ELEVEN MONTHS BACK MY HUSBANDS YOUNGER BROTHER SUD DENLY PASSED AWAY LEAVING BEHIND HIS WIFE AND TWO KIDS. BEING TH E ELDEST MEMBER IN THE COMMON HUF FAMILY I HAVE TO ATTEND UPON THE DIFFICULTIES FACED BY MY CO SISTER WHO HAD BEEN SUFFERING WITHOU T SUPPORT. MY TROUBLES HAD INCREASED MANIFOLD ON ACCOUNT OF THE R ESPONSIBILITY THAT FELL UPON ME ON ACCOUNT OF THE SUDDEN DEATH OF MY H USBANDS BROTHER. AS A CULMINATION OF ALL THE DIFFICULTIES MY LAST AN D THIRD DAUGHTER WHO WAS MARRIED TWO YEARS BACK CONCEIVED AND WAS EX PECTING A CHILD AND I HAVE TO HELP THE LAST DAUGHTER ALSO IN HER HOUR OF NEED. I COULD NOT SPARE TIME FOR ANY OF THE OTHER WORKS W HICH INCLUDED THE FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL . I COULD FIND TIME ONLY NOW TO ATTEND UPON FILING THE APPEAL BEFO RE THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLAINED A DELAY OF 374 DAYS HAD ENTERED INTO THE FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFO RE THE HONOURABNLE TRIBUNAL. I SUBMIT THAT THE DELAY HAD BEEN CAUSED FOR REASONS BEYOND MY CONTROL AND HENCE I SUBMIT THAT THE HONOURABLE TRIB UNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL A ND MAY BE PLEASED TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL AND DEAL WITH THE S AME IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED IN LAW AS IF THE APPEALS ARE ALL APPEALS FILED IN TIME. ITA NOS.1923 TO 1926/CHNY/2018 :- 4 -: SOLEMLY AFFIRMED AND STATED ON OATH AND VERIFIED BY ME ON THIS DAY THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 AT THANJAVUR. IT WAS A PRAYER THAT THE DELAY MAY KINDLY BE CONDON ED AND ALL THE APPEALS DISPOSED OFF ON MERITS. 4. IN REPLY, THE LD.D.R VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE CON DONATION OF DELAY. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE AFFIDAVITS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED AND ADMITTEDLY THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(APPEALS) WAS DATED 30.03.2017 AND SERVED ON 05.04.2017. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE TALKS OF ONE OF HER DAUGHTERS UNDERGOI NG DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS AND BEFORE JANUARY,2017, ELEVEN MONTHS EARLIER, THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND YOUNGER BROTHER PASSED AWAY LEAV ING BEHIND HIS WIFE AND TWO KIDS, AND ASSESSEES THIRD DAUGHTER EX PECTING A CHILD. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT ADMITTEDLY ASSESSEE IS NOT T HE BUSINESS. IT WAS A PRAYER THAT THE REASONS SHOWN ARE NOT JUSTIFIED A ND CONSEQUENTLY, THE DELAY IS NOT TO BE CONDONED. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ALL T HE BUSINESS OPERATIONS ARE LOOKED AFTER BY THE ASSESSEES HUSBA ND. THE FACT THAT HER HUSBAND DID NOT FIND ENOUGH REASONABLE TIME TO GET THE APPEAL PAPERS SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURPOSE OF FILING THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE TIME SHOWS THE SERIO USNESS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING IN RESPECT OF FILING HER APPEALS . IT IS NOT A CASE THAT ITA NOS.1923 TO 1926/CHNY/2018 :- 5 -: THE ASSESSEE HAD TO EXPLAIN ITS BUSINESS AND ACCOUN T DETAILS TO THE COUNSEL OR THAT SHE HAD TO PREPARE THE APPEAL PAPER S HERSELF. THE ASSESSEE HUSBAND IS RUNNING THE OPERATIONS. HE HAD THE TIME AND PRESENCE OF MIND TO DO THE BUSINESS BUT DID NOT CON SIDER FILING THE APPEAL IMPORTANT ENOUGH. THIS BEING SO, I AM NOT I NCLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THESE APPEALS. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995-96, 1997-98, 1998-99 & 1999-2000 ARE DIS MISSED IN LIMINIE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 19 TH NOVEMBER, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) ! '# / JUDICIAL MEMBER & / CHENNAI ' / DATED: 19 TH NOVEMBER, 2018. K S SUNDARAM (!)* +*! / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. ,!- . / CIT(A) 5. */0!1 / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. ,! / CIT 6. 023 / GF