Shri Atul Thakorbhai Vashi, Surat V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Surat

ITA 2521/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94872 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 19-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LALA PHILIPS
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Revised return

Judgement Text

, C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2521/AHD/2013 [ASSTT/YEAR 2008-2009] ATUL THAKOREBHAI VASHI 40, MAHADEV FALIAUDHNA GAM, SURAT. VS ITO, WARD-2(1) SURAT. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS) REVENUE BY : MR.LALA PHILIPS, SR.DR ! / DATE OF HEARING : 19/11/2015 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09 /12/2015 %& / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-II, SURAT DATED 11.9.2013 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09. 2. SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.1,44,476/-. IT IS FURTHER PLEADED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING OF T HE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). 3. THIS APPEAL WAS LISTED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 1. 10.2015. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING NONE HAS COME PRE SENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 19.11.2 015. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON 30.07.2014, WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN ON ITA NO.252/AHD/2011 2 RECORD. THE REGISTRY HAS RAISED OBJECTION THAT ASS ESSEE FAILED TO FILE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN DUPLICATE ALONG WITH APPEAL PAP ERS. THIS FACT WAS BROUGHT TO NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ALONG WITH COPY OF THE NOTICE. BUT INSPITE OF ALL THESE STEPS, ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE, NONE COME PRESENT ON THE DATE OF HEARING. WITH THE ASSISTANC E OF THE LD.DR, WE HAVE TAKEN UP THE APPEAL AND PROCEEDED TO DECIDE TH E APPEAL EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FI LED RETURN OF INCOME ON 24.12.2008 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,37,560/- . THIS RETURN WAS REVISED ON 15.9.2009 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.6,3 7,560/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME OF RS.5.00 LAKHS FROM OTH ER SOURCES. THE AO HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS QUA THIS INCOME AND CONSEQUENTLY IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS.1,44,476./-. THE ORDER WAS P ASSED ON 25.6.2012. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE APPEAL WELL I N TIME. THE APPEAL WAS TIME BARRED FOR MORE THAN SEVEN-AND-HALF MONTHS . THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND DISMISSED IT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 8. IT IS A FACT THAT INVALID REVISED RETURN WAS FIL ED IN THIS CASE AFTER ENQUIRIES BY THE INVESTIGATION WING. HOWEVER, THE FIRST ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS CONDONATION OF DELAY UNDER SECTION 249(3). THE APPELLANT IS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH EXISTENCE OF 'SUFFICIENT CAUSE WHICH LED TO THE DELAY . THE REASON MENTIONE D BY THE APPELLANT IS OF SUCH NATURE WHICH, CAN BE GIVEN IN EVERY CASE OF DELAY. DOES THAT MEAN THAT DELAY IS TO BE CONDONED IN EACH CASE ? HAD THAT BEEN THE INTENTION OF LEGISLATURE, THERE W AS NO NEED FOR SECTION 249(3). THEREFORE, THE DELAY OF 7% OF MONTH S IN THIS CASE IS NOT CONDONED AS EXISTENCE OF ' SUFFICIENT CAUSE HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE APPELLANT. 5. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING THE ASSESSE E HAS FILED TWO PAGES OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, COPY OF THE REVISED C OMPUTATION, WORKING ITA NO.252/AHD/2011 3 OF CAPITAL GAIN AND COPY OF TRIBUNAL FEE CHALLAN. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DE LAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). HE HAS NOT FILED COPY OF THE AF FIDAVIT ANNEXED IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). HE HAS ALSO EVEN NOT FILED COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT O RDER, EVEN AFTER REPEATED REQUESTS FROM THE REGISTRY. IT IS DIFFICU LT FOR US TO VISUALIZE WHAT WAS SUFFICIENT REASONS WHICH PROHIBITED THE AS SESSEE TO FILE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER EXPIRY OF SEVEN-AND-HALF MONTHS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY , WE CANNOT ASSESS THE REASONS OPERATED UPON THE ASSESSEE FOR THIS DEL AY. UNLESS WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE C IT(A) AND REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION OF ISSUE ON ME RIT, WE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE ISSUE, WHETHER PENALTY WAS RIGHTLY IMPOSED UPON THE ASSESSEE OR NOT ? THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UTTERED A SINGLE WOR D IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WITH REGARD TO THE DELAY OCCURRED IN FI LING AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL IS DEVOID OF AN Y MERIT. IT IS DISMISSED. 6 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 9 TH DECEMBER, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 09/12/2015