Inderchand D.Kochar, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1976/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 197621714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI , ! ' . #$ , % &' BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1974/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 MR. RAMESH KUMAR KOCHAR, 33, NSC BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI 600 079. PAN AAIPK7125Q APPELLANT) V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II(2), CHENNAI. RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO. 1975/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SMT. SARALA KANWAR, 60, MONTIETH LANE, EGMORE, CHENNAI 600 008. PAN AAVPK8611J APPELLANT) V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II(2), CHENNAI. RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO. 1976/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 MR. INDERCHAND D. KOCHAR, 33, NSC BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI 600 079. PAN AAAPI7872E APPELLANT) V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II(2), CHENNAI. RESPONDENT) - - ITA 1974/14 E TC. 2 ./ ITA NO. 1977/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 MR. SURESH KUMAR KOCHAR, 33, NSC BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI 600 079. PAN AAIPK7126P APPELLANT) V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II(2), CHENNAI. RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO. 1978/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SMT. ANITA KOCHAR, 33, NSC BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI 600 079. PAN AAEPA4522H APPELLANT) V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II(2), CHENNAI. RESPONDENT) / ASSESSEES BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT ! / DATE OF HEARING : 09.09.2015 '# ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23.09.2015 ( / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE APPEALS BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX( APPEALS) DATED 3.10.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. S INCE, THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON, THEY A RE CLUBBED TOGETHER, HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY THIS C OMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. - - ITA 1974/14 E TC. 3 2. PRIMARILY, THERE IS A DELAY OF 962 DAYS IN FILIN G THESE APPEALS. THE ASSESSEES FILED AFFIDAVITS PRAYING FO R CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEES IS THAT THEY WERE PURSUING ALTERNATE REMEDY AVAILABLE IN THE STATUTE BY FILING A PETITION U/S.154 OF THE ACT BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) AND CONSIDERED IT AS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEALS IN TIME, BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. TO SUPPORT THE VIEW, IT WAS RELIED ON DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. K.S.P.SHANMUGAVEL NADAR AND ORS. REPORTED IN 153 IT R 596. IN THIS CASE, THE CIT(APPEALS) PASSED THE ORDER ON 3.1 0.2011 AND THE SAME WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEES. THE AS SESSEES FILED PETITIONS U/S.154 OF THE ACT, BEFORE THE CIT( APPEALS) ON 18.7.2012. THE TIME LIMIT TO FILE THE APPEAL BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL IS 60 DAYS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN THIS CASE, THOUGH THE ASSESSEES RECE IVED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ON 3.10.2011, THE APPEALS WERE FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 21.7.2014 BY DELAY OF 962 DAYS. T HE ASSESSEES CONTENDED THAT THEY ARE PURSUING ALTERNATE REMEDY A ND IT IS A GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS TO BE NOTED THA T THE PETITIONS U/S.154 OF THE ACT WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEES BEFO RE THE - - ITA 1974/14 E TC. 4 CIT(APPEALS) ONLY ON 18.7.2012 AFTER LAPSE OF 8 MO NTHS. EVEN PRESUMING THAT THE ASSESSEES ARE PURSUING ALTERNATE REMEDY, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO FILE THE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION I.E. 60 DA YS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). HAD THE ASSESSEES FILED THE PETITIONS U/S.154 BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME- TAX(APPEALS) AND THE APPEALS ARE FILED BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL AFTER 60 DAYS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(AP PEALS), THEN, OUR DECISION WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. IN THE PRE SENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEALS WITH INORDINATE DELAY O F 962 DAYS. IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEES ARE NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE REASONABLE CAUSE IN FILING THE APPEALS BELATEDLY. 3. THE DELAY CANNOT BE CONDONED SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEES CASE IS HARD AND CALLS FOR SYMPATHY OR M ERELY OUT OF BENEVOLENCE TO THE PARTY SEEKING RELIEF. IN GRANTI NG THE INDULGENCE AND CONDONING THE DELAY IT MUST BE PROVE D BEYOND THE SHADOW OF DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DILIGENT AND WAS NOT GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE WHATSOEVER. THE SUFFICIENT CA USE WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE LIMITATION PROVISION MUST BE A CAUSE WHICH IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PARTY INVOKING THE AID OF THE - - ITA 1974/14 E TC. 5 PROVISIONS. THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMLA L V. REWA COALFIELDS LTD., AIR 1962 SC 361 HAS HELD THAT THE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WHICH BY DUE CARE AND AT TENTION COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED CANNOT BE A SUFFICIENT CAUSE WITH IN THE MEANING OF THE LIMITATION PROVISION. WHERE NO NEG LIGENCE, NOR INACTION, OR WANT OF BONA FIDES CAN BE IMPUTED TO T HE ASSESSEE A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROVISIONS HAS TO BE MA DE IN ORDER TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. SEEKERS OF JUSTICE MU ST COME WITH CLEAN HANDS. IN OUR OPINION, THE DELAY WAS DUE TO NEGLIGENCE AND INACTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEES. THE AS SESSEES WOULD HAVE AVOIDED THE DELAY BY THE EXERCISE OF DUE CARE AND ATTENTION AND THERE EXISTS NO SUFFICIENT AND GOOD R EASON FOR THE DELAY OF 962 DAYS IN FILING THESE APPEALS. ACCORDI NGLY, ALL THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 23 RD OF SEPT., 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( $ % . & '( ) ( ) * + , ) DUVVURU RL REDDY -./012304556037- 8 9: /JUDICIAL MEMBER ! 9:;<<5=1>01>?@AB@3 )8 /CHENNAI, C9 /DATED, THE 23 RD SEPT., 2015. MPO* - - ITA 1974/14 E TC. 6 9D EFGF /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. H- /CIT(A) 4. H /CIT 5. FIJ K /DR 6. J(L /GF.