M V Guptha, Narasaraopeta V. THE ITO, WARD - 1, Narasaraopeta

ITA 21/VIZ/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 2125314 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D KOMALI KRISHNA
• Assessee Lawyers: A C GANGAIAH
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay; Revised return
• Section: 154; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISHAKHAPATNA M BEFORE S/SHRI D.MANMOHAN (VP) & J.SUDHAKAR REDDY (A M) I.T.A. NOS.21 & 472/VIZ/2014: ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 -07 M.V GUPTHA, 09 - 07 - 43/11, TOP FLOOR, MV TOWERS, ARUNDALPET, NARASARAOPETA. PA NO. AFSPM 5849 Q VS. THE ITO, WARD - 1, NARASARAOPETA. ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.C.GANGAIAH RESPONDENT BY : SMT. D. KOMALI KRISHNA DATE OF HEARING : 04/12/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/12/2014 O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM 1. ITA NO.472/VIZ/2014 IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.7.2013 OF THE LD CIT (A)-GUNTUR UNDER SECTION 15 4 OF THE ACT. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED H IS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ORIGINALLY ON 15.12.2006 DECLARING TOT AL INCOME OF RS.2,44,920/-. A SURVEY OPERATION U/S.133A WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 29.10.2007. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT ON 30.12.2008. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE AS SESSMENT, INTER ALIA , MAKING VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES. ON APPEAL, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUT HORITY UPHELD THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED RECTIFICATION UN DER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHICH WAS REJECTED. HENCE, TH E ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI A.C.GANGAIAH, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. D. KOMALI KRISHNA, LD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. WE OBSERV E THAT THE LD CIT (A) REJECTED THE RECTIFICATION PETITION U/S.154 OF THE ACT ON THE GR OUND THAT THE LD CIT(A), GUNTUR HAS PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER EXPLAINING THE REASONS AS TO WHY S HE HAS UPHELD THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT POINTED OUT AN APPA RENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER, BUT HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER ON MERITS. BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). PERUSAL OF ORDER OF THE LD CIT ( A) DEMONSTRATES THAT HE HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) FOR THE REASON THAT THE LD CIT ( A) GUNTUR HAS PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, WE SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) REJECTING THE PETI TION UNDER SECTION 154 AND THE SAME IS THEREFORE, UPHELD. 4. ITA NO.21/VIZ/2014 IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST ORDER DATED 31.7.2013 OF THE LD CIT(A)-GUNTUR DATED 13-11-2009, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. TO CONSIDER THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.147/148 OF THE ACT. 2. TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF CREDITORS WRITE BACK OF R S.2,66,923/- 3. TO DELETE THE LOSS CLAIM OF RS.58,927/- 4. TO DELETE THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF DIFFERENCE BET WEEN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED ORIGINALLY AND WITH REVISED RETURN OF RS.2,67,851/- . 5. THERE IS A DELAY OF 1648 DAYS IN FILING THIS APP EAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONDONATION PETITION, WHICH READS AS UNDE R: THE APPELLANT, MELLACHERUVU VERRAMBOTLU GUPTA PAN: AFSPM5849Q FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE APPEAL ORDERS OF CIT (A) GUNTUR DATED 13-11-2009 WHICH WERE RECEIVED ON 26 TH NOVEMBER, 2009. THE APPELLANT MIGHT HAVE FILED THE APPEAL ON OR BEFORE 25 TH JANUARY, 2010. THE ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN COMPLETED AFTER FILING REVISED RETURN. THERE IS DIFFERENCE BE TWEEN THE BALANCE SHEETS FILED WITH ORIGINAL RETURN AND REVISED RETURN. THE BALANCE SHEET WITH REVISED RETURN; WAS PREPARED AFTER RECTIFYING THE KNOWN MIS TAKES COMMITTED BY THE ACCOUNTANT OR BY ME. THE APPELLANT FELT THAT CIT (A) WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL IN RESPECT OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. THE APPELLANT FELT THAT THE ARITHMETICAL MISTAKES MAY BE RECTIFIED BY FILING THE PETITION U/S 154 BEFORE CIT (A). CIT (A) REJECTED THE PETITION. THE APPEAL AGAINST SUCH REJECTION OF RECT IFICATION U/S 154; WAS PENDING BEFORE ITAT VIDE ORDERS IN ITA 21/VIZAG/201 4, THE APPELLANT FILE THE APPEAL SOON AFTER PURSUING T HE APPEAL ORDERS OF HIS WIFE DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY HER IN THE WEB OF IT AT. THE APPELLANT HAD UNDER BONAFIDE IMPRESSION; THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE A LLOWED DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY ITO. THE APPELLANT PRAY ITAT TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 165 3 DAYS AND ADMIT THE APPEAL. THE APPELLANT PRAY ITAT TO PERMIT TO PROVID E SUBMISSIONS IN DETAIL AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 6. AN AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY SHRI MELLACHERUVU VEERAMHB HOTLU GUPTA IS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF THE CONDONATION PETITION. 7. THE LD. AR APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RE LIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUIS ITION VS MST. KATIJI (167 ITR 471) IN SUPPORT OF THE PLEA THAT THE CONDONATION APPLICATIO N SHOULD BE CONSIDERED LIBERALLY TO PROMOTE CAUSE OF JUSTICE. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER H AND OPPOSED THE CONDONATION OF DELAY, AND ARGUED THAT SUCH UNUSUAL DELAY, DUE TO NEGLIGEN CE OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE CONDONED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE MATTER CAREFULLY. THERE IS UNUSUALLY LONG DELAY OF 1648 DAYS IN FILING APPEAL AGAINST THE PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE. THOUG H THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS MST. KATIJI (SUPR A), HAVE HELD THAT APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY SHOULD BE LIBERALLY CONSIDERED , TO PROMOTE THE SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF JUSTICE AS LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY LO DGING THE APPEAL LATE, IT HAS ALSO BEEN HELD THAT THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT DELAY IS OCCASION ED DELIBERATELY OR ON ACCOUNT OF CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE OR ON ACCOUNT OF MALAFIDES AND THAT THE DOCTRINE THAT EVERY DAYS DELAY MUST BE EXPLAINED SHOULD BE APPLIED IN A RATIONAL, COMMON SENSE AND PRAGMATIC MANNER. THUS IN TERMS OF JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT THE COND ONATION APPLICATION IS TO BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY WITHOUT ANY PRESUMPTION THAT DELAY IS DEL IBERATE, MALAFIDE OR ON ACCOUNT OF CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW DELAY S HOULD NOT BE CONDONED ONLY IF IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT IT IS A CASE OF LACK OF DUE DALLIA NCE OR CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE IN FILING OF APPEAL. SUCH CASES HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED STRICTLY A S PER LAW, OTHERWISE IT DEFEATS THE VERY PURPOSE OF PROVIDING ANY TIME LIMITATION ON FILING THE APPEAL BY THE STATUTE. IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT IT HAS BEEN PREV ENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FILING THIS APPEAL WITH A DELAY OF 1648 DAYS. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT (A) AND PREFER NOT TO FILE AN APPEAL. IT WAS ONLY AFTER A CONSIDERABLE DELAY THAT HE DECIDED TO FILE AN APPEAL. IN OUR VIEW THERE IS NO REASONABLE CAUSE. ACCORDINGLY, WE REJECT THE CONDONATION PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19/12 /2014 . SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN ) (J.SUDHAKAR RED DY) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VISHAKHAPATNAM DATED 19/ 12/2014 PARIDA , SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE : M.V GUPTHA, 09 - 07 - 43,/11, TOP FLOOR, MV TOWERS, ARUNDALPET, NARASARAOPETA 2. THE RESPONDENT. : THE ITO, WARD - 1, NARASARAOPETA 3. THE CIT(A) - GUNTUR 4. CIT , GUNTUR 5. DR, ITAT, VISHAKHAPATNAM 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR.PS, ITAT, VISHAKHAPATNAM //TRUE COPY//