GOPAL KRISHNA SAHU, NARHARPUR, KANKER V. Income Tax Officer, Ward Kanker

ITA 359/RPR/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1475 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 20-08-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2023
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: S G.S. AGRAWAL; SHUBHAM AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained investment; Search and seizure
• Section: 69A

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायप ु र मɅ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR Įी रवीश स ू द, ÛयाǓयक सदèय के सम¢ BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 359/RPR/2023 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Gopal Krishna Sahu H. No.10, Gopal Krishna Sahu, Main Road, Narhapur, Kanker (C.G.)-494 334 PAN : CSIPS9903G .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Kanker ......Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : S/shri G.S. Agrawal & Shubham Agrawal, CAs Revenue by : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR स ु नवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 29.01.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2024 2 Gopal Krishna Sahu Vs. ITO, Ward-Kanker ITA No. 359/RPR/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 13.09.2023, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 24.10.2019 for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.18,37,750/- made by AO invoking section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The addition made by AO and sustained by Ld. CIT (A) is arbitrary, baseless and not justified. 2. Without prejudice to the above ground, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not dealing with the issue raised by the appellant on merits and has not passed the speaking order. 3. Without prejudice to above grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing order without providing due and proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 4. The assessee reserves the right to add, urge, alter or withdraw any ground/ground(s) at the time or before the date of hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 29.03.2018 declaring an income of Rs.6.06,300/-. The case of the assessee was selected for “limited scrutiny” for verifying the cash deposits made during the demonetization period. 3 Gopal Krishna Sahu Vs. ITO, Ward-Kanker ITA No. 359/RPR/2023 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.18,37,750/- in his bank account with State Bank of India, Branch : Narharpur. As the assessee had neither complied with the statutory notices issued u/s.143(2) and u/s.142(1) of the Act nor filed any written submissions, therefore, the A.O held the amount of cash deposits of Rs.18,37,750/- as unexplained investment and made an addition of the same. The A.O after making the aforesaid addition determined the income of the assessee at Rs.24,44,050/-. 4. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal. 6. Shri Shubham Agrawal, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee at the threshold of hearing of the appeal submitted that the present appeal involves a delay of 16 days. The Ld. AR tried to explain the delay based on two-fold reasons, viz. (i) that due to Deepawali festival on 10 th , 11 th and 12 th November, 2023, the office of the assessee’s consultant had remained closed; and (ii) that due to general assembly elections which were scheduled for 17 th November the working of the assessee’s consultant was hampered. The Ld. AR had drawn my attention to an “affidavit” dated 12.12.2023 filed by the assessee 4 Gopal Krishna Sahu Vs. ITO, Ward-Kanker ITA No. 359/RPR/2023 explaining the reasons leading to the delay. For the sake of clarity the relevant contents of the “affidavit” are culled out as under: 7. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) had raised objection to the seeking of condonation of delay in filing of the present appeal by the assessee appellant. 8. On a careful perusal of the facts leading to the delay in filing of the present appeal, I am unable to persuade myself to subscribe to the same. I, say so, for the reason that the delay in filing of the present appeal can by no means be held to be 5 Gopal Krishna Sahu Vs. ITO, Ward-Kanker ITA No. 359/RPR/2023 justified for the reasons given by the assessee, viz. (i) that due to Deepawali festival on 10 th , 11 th , and 12 th November, 2023, the office of the assessee’s consultant had remained closed; and (ii) that the due to general assembly elections which were scheduled for 17 th November the working of the assessee’s consultant was hampered. As the assessee appellant was in receipt of order of the CIT(Appeals) on 13.09.2023 (as is discernible from the memorandum of appeal), therefore, I am unable to comprehend that what stopped the assessee in preferring the present appeal upto 10 th November, 2023. I am afraid that as the reasons given by the assessee for explaining the delay are not bonafide, therefore, the same cannot be summarily accepted. Considering the callous and lackadaisical conduct of the assessee wherein he had delayed the filing of the present appeal without any justifiable reason, I do not find any substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that the delay in filing of the appeal had occasioned for bona fide reasons. 9. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Phoenix Mills Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT in ITA No.6240/MUM/2007 for A.Y.1999-2000, dated 23.03.2020, had held that where an application for condonation of delay has been moved bonafide, then, the Court would normally condone the delay, but where the delay has not been explained at all and in fact there is an unexplained the delay coupled with negligence or sheer carelessness, then, the discretion of the court in such cases would normally tilt against the applicant. Reverting to the facts of the present case, I have already examined the reasons that had led to the inordinate delay, which has not been explained by the assessee to have occasioned due to 6 Gopal Krishna Sahu Vs. ITO, Ward-Kanker ITA No. 359/RPR/2023 bonafide reasons. As observed by me hereinabove, as there was no justifiable reason for the assesee to file the appeal before me after 16 days, therefore, there appears to be no reason to adopt a liberal view and condone the delay therein involved. Also, I may observe at this juncture that the law of limitation has to be construed strictly as it has an effect of vesting on one and taking away the right from the other party. The delay in filing of the appeals cannot be condoned in a mechanical or a routine manner since that would undoubtedly jeopardize the legislative intent behind Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 10. I may herein observe that in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Administrator, Howrah 1972 AIR SC 749, the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, particularly when there is no motive behind the delay. The expression “sufficient cause” will always have relevancy to reasonableness. The action which can be condoned by the court should fall within the realm of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. However, as observed by me hereinabove, as the assessee appellant in the present case had acted in a most callous manner, therefore, there can be no reason to allow his application and condone the delay of 16 days involved in preferring of the captioned appeal. 11. In the present case the delay of 16 days cannot be simply condoned on the basis of the unsubstantiated claim of the assessee that the same had occasioned for the reasons, viz (i) that due to Deepawali festival on 10 th , 11 th and 12 th 7 Gopal Krishna Sahu Vs. ITO, Ward-Kanker ITA No. 359/RPR/2023 November, 2023, the office of the assessee’s consultant had remained closed; and (ii) that the due to general assembly elections which were scheduled for 17 th November, the working of the assessee’s consultant was hampered. 12. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR (1962) 361 (SC) that seeker of justice must come with clean hands, therefore, now when in the present appeal the assessee appellant had failed to come forth with any good and sufficient reason that would justify condonation of the delay involved in preferring of the captioned appeal, therefore, I decline to condone the same and, thus, without adverting to the merits of the case dismiss the captioned appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.359/RPR/2023 for A.Y. 2017-18 is dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 31 st day of January, 2024. Sd/- (रवीश स ू द /RAVISH SOOD) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायप ु र/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 31 st January, 2024. SB आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G) 8 Gopal Krishna Sahu Vs. ITO, Ward-Kanker ITA No. 359/RPR/2023 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G) 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,रायप ु र बɅच, रायप ु र / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 6. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशान ु सार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Ǔनजी सͬचव / Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायप ु र / ITAT, Raipur.