MR. C. JEGAVEERAPANDIAN, THIRUCHENDUR V. ITO, WARD - I (2), TUTICORIN

ITA 2609/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5154 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G JOHNSON
• Assessee Lawyers: B RAMAKRISHNAN
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133A; 147; 131; 148; 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: CHENNAI , , ) BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SL. NO. ./ ITA NUMBERS / ASSESSMENT YEARS + / APPELLANT ,-+ / RESPONDENT 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 2608/CHNY/2019 2609/CHNY/2019 2610/CHNY/2019 2611/CHNY/2019 2612/CHNY/2019 2613/CHNY/2019 2614/CHNY/2019 2615/CHNY/2019 1995-1996 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 MR. C. JEGAVEERAPANDIAN, 7-21, RASANGAPURAM, KURUKATTOR, THIRUCHENDUR-628 623. [PAN: AFVPJ 1823L] THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I(2), TUTICORIN. / APPELLANT BY : MR. B. RAMAKRISHNAN, FCA ,-+ /RESPONDENT BY : MR. G. JOHNSON, ADDL. CIT /DATE OF HEARING : 07.09.2021 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.09.2021 / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE EIGHT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS)-1, MADURAI IN ITA NOS. 182 TO 189/2015-16 DATED 03.07. 2019 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995-1996 TO 2002-2003 RESPECTIVELY . 2. IN ALL THESE APPEALS THE ISSUE IS COMMON I.E., W HETHER THE LD. CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN PUR SUANCE TO THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE HONBLE ITAT. I.T.A NOS.2608 TO 2615/CHNY/2019 :- 2 -: 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL. A SURVEY U/S. 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HER EINAFTER AS THE ACT) WAS CONDUCTED IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S . JVP ASSOCIATES AND OTHER SISTER CONCERNS ON 11.07.2001. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, SOME DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND. BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS FOUND IN THE SU RVEY, THE A.O HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING A NOTICE U/S. 14 8 OF THE ACT AND AFTER FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCEDURE, AN ASSESSMENT WA S COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) R/W. S. 147 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE ARS 1999-96 TO 1997-98 AND S. 144 R/W S. 147 OF THE ACT FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2002-03. AGGRIEVED BY THESE ASSESSMENT O RDERS, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL ON 21.09.2012 BEFORE THE C IT(A) ALONG WITH THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FOR 8 YEARS. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BY REJECTING THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FILED BY H IM VIDE ORDER DATED 19.12.2013. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE HONBL E ITAT A BENCH, CHENNAI IN ITA NOS. 343, 2904, 2905, 2906, 2907, 29 08, 2909 & 2910/MDS/2014 DATED 18.03.2015 HAS SET ASIDE THE OR DER PASSED BY I.T.A NOS.2608 TO 2615/CHNY/2019 :- 3 -: THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 19.12.2013 AND REMITTED THE IS SUE OF DELAY CONDONATION TO THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 18.0 3.2015. 6. IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS BY THE HONBLE ITAT, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE A.O TO CONDUCT AN ENQUIRY REGAR DING AVERMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS AFFIDAVIT AND CALLED TH E REMAND REPORT. THE A.O AFTER CONDUCTING AN ENQUIRY SUBMITTED A REM AND REPORT DATED 17.05.2017 TO LD. CIT(A), THE SAME REMAND REPORT IS EXTRACTED BY LD. CIT(A) AS UNDER: 'AS DIRECTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS), MADURAI, A SUMMON U/S 131 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS ISSUED TO DR. M URALIDHARAN, BAMS WHO APPEARED BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AND A SWORN STATEMENT WAS TA KEN. IN HIS SWORN STATEMENT, DR. MURALIDHARAN, BAMS STAT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERING FROM HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE. SUGAR AND J OINT PAIN SINCE 20.01.2002 AND HE WAS TAKING AYURVEDIC TREATMENT AT GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL TUTICORIN AS A OUTPATIENT. FURTHER, DR. MURALIDHARAN BAMS., HAS STATED THAT TH E ASSESSEE VISITED HIS CLINIC SEVERAL TIMES FOR AYURVEDIC TREATMENT FROM 20.01,20 02 TO 28.08.2010 AS OUTPATIENT (COPY OF SWORN STATEMENT RECORDED FROM D R. MURALIDHARAN BAMS SUBMITTED). IN SUPPORT OF HIS STATEMENT DR. MURAFIDHARAN BAMS., HAS SUBMITTED A COPY OF OP REGISTER EXTRACT AND A COPY OF PRESCRIPT ION FOR HAVING TAKEN TREATMENT BY SHRI C. JEGAVEERAPANDIAN (COPY SUBMITTED). REGARDING THE ASSESSEE'S STAY IN AN ISOLATED PLACE FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS, THIS OFFICE INSPECTOR WAS DEPUTED TO ENQUIRE ABO UT THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM. ON MEETING THE ASSESSEE IN PERSON THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT HE WAS AWAY IN MENTAL DEPRESSION DUE TO THE FINANCIAL CRISIS A ND STAYED AWAY FROM HIS FAMILY AT DIFFERENT ADDRESSES. HOWEVER, WHEN ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE EVIDENCE FOR STAYING AT DIFFERENT ISOLATED PLACES FOR SO MANY YEARS HE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE. (COPY OF ITI SUBMITTED) WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE RECEIPT OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS, THE ASS ESSEE STATED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE RECEIVED BY HIS F AMILY MEMBERS. ON VERIFYING THE OFFICE RECORDS, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF SHRI C. JEGAVEERAPANDIAN WERE RECEIVED BY HIS SON S HRI SARAVANAN. AS FAR AS THE DATE OF NOTICES ISSUED BY TRO, IN RESPECT O F THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED THE ITCP-1 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 09-3- 2016. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A LETTER DATED, 05-4-2017 STATIN G THAT HE HAD GONE OUT OF HIS FAMILY AND BUSINESS AND HAD LED AN ISOLAT ED LIFE OUTSIDE DUE TO HIS MENTAL DEPRESSION AND FINANCIAL CRISIS. HE STATED THA T HE WAS SUFFERING FROM BLOOD PRESSURE, CHRONIC DIABETICS FOR WHICH HE WAS TAKI NG AYURVEDIC TREATMENT AT GOVT. HOSPITAL, TUTICOIRN. FURTHER VIDE LETTER DA TED, 17-5-2017 HE STATED THAT I.T.A NOS.2608 TO 2615/CHNY/2019 :- 4 -: HE WAS LIVING AT THE HOUSES OF HIS FRIENDS AND RELATIV ES AT TIRUPUR AND ALWARTIRUNAGARI DURING THE PERIOD UNDER TREATMENT F OR THE PERIOD FROM 26-01- 2002 TO 28-10-2010.' 7. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE REMAND REPORT GIVEN BY THE A.O AND PASSED THE DETAILED ORDER AND ALSO REJECTED THE CONDONATION OF DELAY, WHICH READS AS UNDER: THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR ALL THE EIGHT YEARS FROM ASS ESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 TO 2002-03 WERE PTRUSED. THE DETAILS REGARDIN G FILING OF RETURN, APPEARANCE OF THE APPELLANT AND THE AUTHORISED REPRESE NTATIVE, ISSUE OF NOTICES U/S 148/142(1)/143(2), THE DATE OF ORDERS AND THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED ETC., FOR SAKE OF CLARITY ARE GIVEN IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE: ASST. YEAR NOTICE U/S 143(2)/ 142(1) ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 DATE OF HEARING ATTENDANCE OF APPELLANT AND INCOME (IN AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSED INCOME (IN LAKHS) DATE OF ORDER 1995-96 12.03.2003 FILED FILED ON 10.03.03 19.03.03 06.01.04 26.02.04 YES 8.84 25.03.04 1996-97 12.03.2003 NOT FILED FIFED ON 10.03 . 03 19.03.03 06.01.04 26.02.04 YES 1.32 2S.03.04 1997-98 12.03.2003 NOT FILED FILED ON 10.03.03 19.03.03 06.01.04 26.02.04 YES 3.00 25.03.04 1998-99 06.05.2003 NOT FILED NOT FILED 17.09.04 01,10.04 30.12.04 07.12.05 NO 4.33 25.03.04 1999-00 06.05.2003 NOT FILED NOT FILED 17.09.04 01.10.04 30.12.04 07.12.05 NO 5.48 11,03.05 2000-01 06.05.2003 NOT FILED NOT FILED 17.09.04 01-10.04 30.12.04 07.12.05 NO 2.28 DO 2001-02 06.05.2003 NOT FILED NOT FILED 17.09.04 01.10.04 30.12.04 07.12.05 NO 2.28 DO 2002-03 06.05.2003 NOT FILED NOT FILED 17.09.04 01.10.04 30.12.04 07.12.05 NO 2.28 DO I.T.A NOS.2608 TO 2615/CHNY/2019 :- 5 -: 6.2 FROM THE ABOVE TABLE, IT IS CLEAR THAT IN RESPONS E TO THE FINDINGS MADE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ON 11.07.2001, SEVERAL INSTANCES OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WERE DETECTED AND THEREFORE, NOTICES U/S 14 8 WERE ISSUED FOR ALL THE EIGHT ASSESSMENT YEARS IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2003. I N RESPONSE TO THESE NOTICES, THE APPELLANT CHOSE TO FILE THE INCOME TAX RETU RN IN RESPECT OF ONLY THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. 1995-96, 1996-97 A 1997-98. HE, HO WEVER, CHOSE NOT TO FILE ANY INCOME TAX RETURN IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER FIVE ASSESSM ENT YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2002-03. IT CAN ALSO BEEN SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HIMSELF ALONG WITH HIS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER .03.2003, 06.01.2004 AND 26.02.2004 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995-96 ,1996-97 & 1997-98. HE, HOWEVER, CHOSE NOT TO RESPOND TO THE NOTICES U/S 148 AND 142{1) IN RESPECT OF FIVE ASSE SSMENT YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2002-03. IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR FROM THI S FACTUAL BACKGROUND THAT THE APPELLANT WAS FULLY AWARE OF THE NATURE OF CONCEALME NT WHICH WAS DETECTED IN HIS PRESENCE ON 11.07.2001. HE WAS ALSO FULLY AWARE OF THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 148/142(1) IN 2003 AND ALSO DUE TO THE FACT THAT HE W AS ATTENDING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS BEFORE THE SAME INCO ME TAX OFFICER WHO WAS ALSO DEALING WITH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR OTHER FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E.1998-99 TO 2002-03. THE APPELLANT, HOWEVER, CHOSE NOT TO COOPERATE AND ATTEND IN RESPECT OF THESE FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. AS HE WAS APPEAR ING BEFORE THE SAME ASSESSING OFFICER, HE WAS AWARE OF THE POTENTIAL AREA OF ADDITION AND THE QUANTUM OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WHICH WAS LIKELY TO BE DETERMINED FOR ALL THESE EIGHT ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, FOR THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E.1995- 96, 1996-97 & 1997-98, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDE D HIS PRESENCE BEFORE HIM ALONG WITH HIS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE UPTO 26.02.2 004. THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S.147 FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995- 96, 1996-97, 1997-98 A 1998- 99 WERE PASSED ON 25.03.2004, NATURALLY HE WOULD BE F ULLY AWARE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THESE FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS. 6.3. IN THE SHOWN AFFIDAVIT WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT, AT POINT NO.1, THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SUR VEY ON 11.07.2001, HE HAD GONE OUT OF FAMILY AND BUSINESS AND HAD LED AN ISOLATED LIFE OU TSIDE DUE TO LOSS IN BUSINESS AND HIS INABILITY TO CONTINUE THE BUSINESS. FROM THE CLEAR FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE AVERMENTS OF THE APPELLANT ARE COMPLETELY FALSE AS HIS PRESENCE HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UPTO 26.02.2004, ALMOST UPTO 2 YEARS FROM THE DAT E OF SURVEY. 6.4. IT HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED IN THE AFFIDAVIT TH AT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT PRESENT IN HIS RESIDENCE AND DID NOT RECEIVE ANY ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT HE LATER STATED THAT ORDERS AND NOTICE S HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY HIS SON AND WIFE. THIS AVERMENT IS AGAIN BLATANTLY FALSE BECAUSE WAS AVAILABLE WHEN THE NOTICES U/S 148/143(2) AND 142(1) WERE ISSUED IN 2003 HE WAS ATTENDING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HIS AVERMENTS ARE COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO THE RECORDED F ACTS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. DR. MURALIDHARAN, BAMS HAS STATED IN HIS SWORN STATEMENT THAT THE APPELLANT WA S UNDER HIS AYURVEDIC TREATMENT AT THE GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, TUT ICORIN BETWEEN 20.01.2002 TO 28.08.2010. AS HE ATTENDED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER UPTO 26.02.2004, AT LEAST DURING THE PERIOD FROM 20.01.2002 TO 26.02.2004 HE MUST HA VE STAYED AT HIS RESIDENCE WHICH IS IN THE SAME TOWN AS THE LOCATION OF THE GOVERNMENT HOS PITAL. 6.5. DR. MURALIDHARAN, BAMS, AT GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL , TUTICORIN HAS STATED THAT HE HAD BEEN GIVING AYURVEDIC TREATMENT TO THE APPELLANT FR OM 20.01.2002 TO 28.08.2010 AS OUTPATIENT. IN SUPPORT OF WHICH DR. MURALIDHARAN, B AMS, HAS SUBMITTED THE EXTRACT OF OUTPATIENT REGISTER AND COPY OF PRESCRIPTIONS FOR H AVING GIVEN TREATMENT TO THE APPELLANT, IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT WAS UNDER TREATMENT FROM JANUARY 2002 AND WAS AVAILABLE AT HIS RESIDENCE ATLEAST UP TO MARCH 2004 , WHICH IS THE APPELLANT HAS, DENIED IN HIS AVERMENT AT POINT NO.1. IN THE LETTER DATED 05.04.2017, THE APPELLANT HAS S UBMITTED THAT HE HAD LED AN ISOLATED LIFE OUTSIDE DUE TO MENTAL DEPRESSION AND FINANCIAL CRISIS AND DURING THIS PERIOD HE WAS LIVING AT THE HOUSE OF HIS FRIENDS AND RELATIVE S AT THIRUPPUR AND ALWARTHIRUNAGIRI. IT IS I.T.A NOS.2608 TO 2615/CHNY/2019 :- 6 -: ALSO CLEAR FROM THE SWORN STATEMENT OF DR. MURALIDHARAN, BAMS, THAT HE WAS ATTENDING AYURVEDIC TREATMENT AT THE GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL AT T UTICORIN. THE PLACES LIKE THIRUPPUR AND ALWARTHIRUNAGIRI ARE FAR AWAY FROM TUTICORIN. THE A PPELLANT HAD BEEN COMING FOR SUCH TREATMENT FROM A FAR-OFF PLACES TO TAKE AYURVEDIC T REATMENT AT GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL AT TUTICORIN, IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT HE WILL NOT G O TO HIS OWN HOUSE AND MEET HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. THEREFORE, FROM THE RECORDED FACTS, THE AV ERMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS AFFIDAVIT ARE CONTRARY TO FACTS AND ARE BLATANTLY F ALSE. THE APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE REGARD FOR THE LAWS OF THE LAND, HE DID NOT COOPERATE IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND DID NOT FILE INCOME TAX RETURN. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES U/S 148 AND 142(1) D ESPITE BEING FULLY AWARE OF THE OUTCOME OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ATLEAST FOR THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. 1995-96, 1996-97 & 1997-98 FOR WHICH HE PERSONALLY APPEARED WITH HIS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSE D ON 25.03.2004 HE CHOSE NOT TO FILE THE APPEAL WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD GRANTED TO H IM. UNDER THE BACKGROUNDS FACTS OF THIS CASE, IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE INTERACTED EVEN AFTER MARCH 2004 ONWARDS WITH HIS FAMILY MEMBERS PARTICULARLY HIS SO N AND WIFE. THEREFORE, THE STORY MADE OUT IN HIS AFFIDAVIT IS BLATANTLY FALSE AND TH E VERSION IS NOT TENABLE AT ALL. 6.6. IT APPEARS THAT HE FACED A GRIM SCENARIO, WHEN HE R ECEIVED NOTICE FROM TRO, TUTICORIN SOMEWHERE IN THE YEAR 2012 HE THEN PROBAB LY REALIZED THAT HE HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO FILE APPEAL BEFORE THIS OFFICE AND AC CORDINGLY, HE WOULD HAVE FILED APPEAL FOR ALL THESE EIGHT ASSESSMENT YEARS ON 21.09.2012. DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE TRO, TUTICORIN FINALLY THE ITCP-1 WAS ISSUED ON 09.03.2016, AS A CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH, THERE WAS CLEAR DANGER OF ATTACHMENT AND AUC TION OF THE PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE APPELLANT. FROM THE OVERALL FACTUAL CANVASS ARISING OUT OF THE RECORDED FACTS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE AFFIDAVIT BY THE APPELLANT ARE FALSE AND HAS BEEN GIVEN TO MIS-LEAD THE HIGHER APPELLATE FORUM AND IS GUILTY OF MIS-CONDUCT UNDER THE LAW. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT PREVENTED BY A SUFFICIENT CAUSE. FROM THE FACTS AVA ILABLE ON RECORD IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PRO CEEDINGS, IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT IT WAS DUE TO TOTAL NEGLIGENCE AND DISREGARD TO THE PR OVISIONS TO THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE APPELLANT CHOSE NOT TO FILE THE APPEALS WITHIN THE STATUTORY TIME ALLOWED TO HIM. BASED ON THE BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE WITH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TH AT HE WAS PREVENTED BY ANY SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS. THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ONLY NEGLIGENT BUT HAD COMPLETE DISREGARD TO THE LAW WHI CH LED TO A DELAY OF 8 YEARS. 6.7. IN SHORT HE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THERE WERE REA SONS BEYOND HIS CONTROL WHICH PREVENTED HIM FROM FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE STA TUTORY TIME ALLOWED TO HIM. THE STORY WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN IN HIS AFFIDAVIT AND THE RESUL T OF INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT INSTILL CONFIDENCE IN TH E TRUTHFULNESS OF HIS STORY, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, HE WAS NOT PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT REASONABLE CAUSE IN FILING THE APPEALS FOR EIGHT ASSESSMENT YEARS WITHIN THE STATUTORY TIME ALLOWED TO HIM, AS HE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE ABNORMAL DELAY OF ABOUT 8 VI YEARS AND THE REASONS GIVEN BY HIM APPEAR TO BE UNREALIABTE AND FALSE. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE DELAY I N FILING OF APPEAL CANNOT BE CONDONED. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN-LIMINE. 8. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ATTENDED THE FAMILY FOR 10 YEARS A ND STAYED IN AN ISOLATED PLACE AND HE IS SUFFERING WITH SUGAR, BLOO D PRESSURE AND OTHER I.T.A NOS.2608 TO 2615/CHNY/2019 :- 7 -: AILMENTS THEREFORE, HE IS NOT AWARE OF THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE A.O HENCE, THE DELAY MAY BE CONDONED. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE HAS POINTED OUT THAT AS PER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR CONDONATON OF DELAY, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IMMEDIATELY AFTER S URVEY I.E., ON 11.07.2001 HE IS AWAY FROM THE FAMILY LEADING AN IS OLATED LIFE, WHICH IS NOT CORRECT FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSEL F APPEARED BEFORE THE A.O ON 06.01.2004 AND 26.02.2004 AND THEREFORE, THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE AFFIDAVIT ARE FALSE. THE LD. D.R FURTH ER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING PARTICIPATED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, HE OUGHT TO HAVE AWARE THAT THE A.O MUST HAVE PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER. HAVING KNOWN TO THE FACT THAT THERE MUST BE AN ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF DECIDED NOT TO GO TO HIS HOUSE FOR THE REAS ON THAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO RECEIVE THE ORDER OF THE A.O. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CONSULTING THE DOCTOR REGULARLY TO TAKE TREATMEN T FOR HIS ILL-HEALTH. FURTHER THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO SUFFI CIENT CAUSE PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE TO GO TO HIS HOUSE TO COLLECT THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER AND FILE AN APPEAL. HENCE, THE DELAY MAY NOT BE CONDONED. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATER IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. THE A.O HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 25.03.2004. WHE N THE A.O HAS I.T.A NOS.2608 TO 2615/CHNY/2019 :- 8 -: ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE ONL Y FILED INCOME-TAX RETURN IN RESPECT OF THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995-96 , 1996-97 & 1997- 98 FOR REMAINING FIVE YEARS I.E., 1998-99 TO 2002-0 3 HE HAS CHOSEN NOT TO FILE A RETURN. THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH CHARTERE D ACCOUNTANT APPEARED BEFORE THE A.O ON 19.03.2003, 18.10.2004, 26.02.2004 IN RESPECT OF THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995-96, 1996-97 & 1997-98. THE REMAINING FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT RESPONDED, ULTIMATELY THE A.O HAS PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDERS ON 25.03.2004. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE KNOWS THAT THERE ARE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE A.O FOR WHICH HE HAS APPEARED ALREADY ALONG WITH HIS C.A AND ALSO OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS PENDING BEFORE THE A.O. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE KNOWINGLY NOT TO CHOOSE FILE AN APPEAL IN TIME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). APART FROM THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFI DAVIT BEFORE THE ITAT, WHEREIN HE HAS STATED IN PARAGRAPH-I THAT HE IS AWA Y FROM FAMILY SINCE 11.07.2001, WHICH IS FACTUALLY NOT CORRECT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED BEFORE THE A.O ON 19.03.2003, 18.10.2004, 26.02.2004 THEREFORE, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE IS AWAY FROM THE FAMILY CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. FURTHER, AS PER THE REMAND REP ORT SUBMITTED BY THE A.O THAT THE ASSESSEE SUFFERING FROM SUGAR, JOI NT PAIN SINCE 20.01.2002 FOR THAT HE IS TAKING TREATMENT FROM DR. MURALIDHARAN, BAMS AND THE ASSESSEE IS VISITING THE HOSPITAL FOR THE P ERIOD FROM 20.01.2002 I.T.A NOS.2608 TO 2615/CHNY/2019 :- 9 -: TO 28.08.2010 AS AN OUTPATIENT. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT HIS STATE OF MIND IS PERFECT AND HE IS TAKING TREATMENT FOR H IS ILL-HEALTH THEREFORE, HE MUST ALSO AWARE THAT THERE WAS AN ASSESSMENT ORD ER AND APPEAL ALSO TO BE FILED. AFTER CAREFUL READING OF THE REMA ND REPORT AND ALSO DETAILED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AWAY FROM THE FAMILY FOR 10 YEARS IS NOT BELIEVABLE. FOR THE CONDONATION OF THE DELAY, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO SHOW THAT THERE MUST BE A SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO CONDONE THE DELAY. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSES SEE HIMSELF DECIDED AS PER HIS AFFIDAVIT NOT TO GO TO HIS HOUSE KNOWING LY THAT THERE MUST BE AN ASSESSMENT ORDER. NO ONE IS PREVENTED THE ASSESS EE TO GO TO HIS HOUSE THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE I S NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO CONDONE DELAY. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2021 IN CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( ) (G. MANJUNATHA) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (V. DURGA RAO) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED: 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2021 . EDN/- /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ( )/CIT(A) 4. /CIT 5. /DR 6. /GF