Kishore Kumar Jain, Hyderabad V. Asst. CIT, Central Circle - 4, Hyderabad

ITA 196/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 19622514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D SUDHAKAR RAO
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 263; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.196/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 MR. KISHORE KUMAR JAIN HYDERABAD. PAN ACEPJ1928Q VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4 HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. Y. RATNAKAR FOR REVENUE : MR. D. SUDHAKAR RAO DATE OF HEARING : 20.10.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.10.2014 ORDER PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER O F LD. CIT-VI, HYDERABAD DATED 30.03.2012 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. THE APPEAL WAS FILED WITH A DELAY OF 261 DAYS. ASSESSEE FILED CONDONATION PETITION ALONG WITH APPE AL MEMO. IN THE CONDONATION PETITION ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT HI S AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. S.S. MEHTA ADVISED HI M NOT TO PREFER ANY APPEAL ON THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 AS IT WAS ONLY A SET ASIDE. SUBSEQUENTLY, AFTER CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS ARE PASSED, THE C.A. WHO WAS HANDLING THE MATTERS ADVIS ED THAT APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN PREFERRED ON THE ORDER UNDE R SECTION 263. THEREFORE, APPEAL WAS FILED WITH A PETITION FO R CONDONATION OF DELAY. ALONG WITH PETITION, ASSESSEE FILED AN AF FIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND AL SO ENCLOSED 2 ITA.NO.196/HYD/2013 MR. KISHORE KUMAR JAIN, HYDERABAD. A LETTER FROM MR. S.S. MEHTA DATED 15.02.2013 CONFI RMING THE ASSERTIONS MADE BY ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, WHEN THE C ASE IS TAKEN-UP FOR HEARING, ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVI T FROM MR. S.S. MEHTA. LD. COUNSEL REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE AFFIDAVIT AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS GENUI NELY PREVENTED IN FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME ON THE ADVIS E GIVEN BY HIS COUNSEL AND THEREFORE, THE CONDONATION MAY BE GRANT ED. 4. WE HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS AS ARISING FROM THE ORDER AND THE PETITION FILED BY ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE CONFIRMATION AND AFFIDAVIT OF MR. S.S. MEHTA. IN PA RA 6 OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT ON THE DAT E OF HEARING, ASSESSEES AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. S .S. MEHTA, TAX PRACTITIONER ATTENDED ALONG WITH ASSESSEE IN PE RSON AND ALSO FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON 30.03.2012. HOWEV ER, AS SEEN FROM THE ORDER, THE ORDER INDICATES THAT THERE IS NOBODY PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDIN GS UNDER SECTION 263. WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO EXAMINE TH E RECORD WHETHER ANYBODY APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT-VI TO V ERIFY THIS ASSERTIONS MADE IN THE PETITION. THE SUBMISSION THA T ASSESSEE APPEARED ALONG WITH MR. S.S. MEHTA IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE ORDER. 5. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY ASSES SEES ERSTWHILE COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF PETITION IS FACTUAL LY INCORRECT VIS-A-VIS CONFIRMATION FILED. IN THE AFFIDAVIT, DT. 14.04.2014, ASSESSEES ERSTWHILE COUNSEL AVERS AS UNDER : I, SHANTHI SINGH MEHTA, S/O. THE LATE BHAGAT SINGH MEHTA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.501 , SRINIVASA RESIDENCY, STREET NO.4, NEW NARAYANAGUDA, 3 ITA.NO.196/HYD/2013 MR. KISHORE KUMAR JAIN, HYDERABAD. HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD-500 029, DO HEREBY AFFIRM AND STATE AS UNDER. 1. I HAVE BEEN PRACTICING IN INCOME TAX BOTH AS INCOME TAX PRACTITIONER AND ADVOCATE FROM THE YEAR 1972 ONWARDS. I MAINLY DEAL WITH INCOME TAX MATTERS. SHR I KISHORE KUMAR JAIN RESIDING AT ROAD NO.2, BANJARA H ILLS, HYD. IS ONE OF MY OLD CLIENTS AND I HAVE BEEN LOOKI NG AFTER HIS PERSONAL I.T. MATTERS SINCE THE YEAR 1995. HE H AS BEEN FOLLOWING MY ADVICE AND INSTRUCTIONS WHENEVER REQUIRED IN HIS TAX MATTERS. 6. HOWEVER, IN THE CONFIRMATION IT WAS STATED AS UNDER : CONFIRMATION I, SHANTI SINGH MEHTA RESIDING AT HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD (TEL. [phone]) HEREBY CONFIRM AS FOLL OWS 1. I AM A TAX PRACTITIONER PRACTICING SINCE FOUR DECADES. SHRI KISHORE KUMAR JAIN IS MY CLIENT FOR T HE LAST FOUR YEARS AND I HAVE BEEN LOOKING AFTER HIS TAX MA TTERS. I HAVE APPEARED ALONGWITH MR. KISHORE KUMAR JAIN BEFO RE THE CIT IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 FOR ASST. YEAR 2004- 05. 2. ........ 7. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE CONFIRMATION LETTER ENCLOSED ALONG WITH THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION, I T INDICATES THAT MR. S.S. MEHTA IS ADVISING THE ASSESSEE FOR TH E LAST 4 YEARS, WHEREAS, THE AFFIDAVIT INDICATES THAT HE HAS BEEN ADVISING THE ASSESSEE ON I.T. MATTERS SINCE 1995. S INCE, THERE IS A CONTRADICTION FROM THE ORIGINAL PETITION TO TH E AFFIDAVIT GIVEN IN THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS, LD. COUNSEL WAS A SKED TO EXPLAIN. THE PERSON WHO IS ASSISTING LD. COUNSEL AN D PRESENT IN THE COURT ROOM INFORMED THAT HE HAS BEEN ADVISIN G MR. K.K. JAIN-ASSESSEE ONLY FOR THE LAST 4 YEARS. SINCE THE AFFIDAVIT FURNISHED IS NOT CORRECT AND FACTUALLY INCORRECT, W E CANNOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE AVERMENTS MADE THEREIN. SINC E, THERE IS 4 ITA.NO.196/HYD/2013 MR. KISHORE KUMAR JAIN, HYDERABAD. NO BONAFIDE REASON FOR NOT PREFERRING THE APPEAL IN TIME, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO GRANT CONDONATION ON THE FACTS OF T HE CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS REJECTED. SINCE APPEAL IS FILED BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT, THE AP PEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL PREFERRED BY ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.10.2014. SD/- SD/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) (B.RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 29 TH OCTOBER, 2014. VBP/- COPY TO 1. KISHORE KUMAR JAIN, 5-5-666, MALAKUNTA, M.J. MAR KET, HYDERABAD. 2. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, HYDERABAD. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, HYDERABAD 4. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-VII, HYDERABAD 5. D.R. ITAT B BENCH, HYDERABAD