Krishna Plastochem Ltd. (In Liqn.), Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 368/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3086 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 368/AHD/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 KRISHNA PLASTOCHEM LTD. (IN LIQN.) C/O. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR JIVABHAI CHAMBERS ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD 380 009. PAN : AABCK 2294 A VS ITO, WARD-2(1)(2) AHMEDABAD. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 27/08/2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/08/2018 O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-2, AHMEDABA D DATED 5.12.2016 PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20129-13. 2. IN THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL BY HOL DING THAT IT IS TIME BARRED BY 199 DAYS. 3. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING, NONE PRESE NT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. AT THE TIME OF FILING OF APPEAL, REGISTR Y HAS ISSUED AN ITA NO.368/AHD/2017 - 2 - ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/DEFECT MEMO TO AUTHORIZED PERSON PO INTING OUT THEREIN THAT THE TRIBUNAL FEES IS SHORT BY RS.9,500/-. THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED UNDER THE SIGNATURE OF OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, BUT NO STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO REMOVE THIS OBJECTION. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE O F HEARING NONE HAS COME PRESENT FOR EXPLAINING AS TO WHY FEES HAS NOT BEEN PAID. APART FROM THE ABOVE, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) REFUSING CONDONATION OF DELAY, WHICH READS AS UNDER : 2.3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE APPLICATION O F THE APPELLANT. HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION, IT IS NOTICED THA T THE DELAY OF 6 MONTHS AND 17 DAYS WAS CLAIMED TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF HIGH OCCUPATION OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR IN HIS OFFICE WORK CANNOT BE THE JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. IT CAN BE UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE DELAY OF A REASONABLE PER IOD DUE TO WORKING IN GOVERNMENT OFFICE BECAUSE OF CERTAIN CON STRAINTS AND THEREFORE, THE DELAY TO THE EXTENT OF A PERMISSIBLE LIMIT CAN BE GRANTED BUT THE DELAY OF 199 DAYS IN THE INSTANT CA SE IS EXCEPTIONAL WHICH HAS NOT BEEN JUSTIFIED BY GIVING COMPLETE DET AILS AND EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE REASONS. SIMPLY SELF SE RVING CONTENTION THAT THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR WAS ENGAGED IN HIS OFF ICE WORK AND COULD NOT ATTEND THIS WORK IS NO LONGER AN ACCEPTAB LE REASON. IT HAS BEEN NOTICED IN ANOTHER CASE, REPRESENTED BY THE OF FICIAL LIQUIDATOR THE DELAY OF 53 DAYS WAS CONSIDERED TO BE FAIR AND REASONABLE ON ACCOUNT OF THE REASONS GIVEN AND THE SAME HAS BEEN CONDONED, BUT THE INORDINATE DELAY OF 199 DAYS IN THE INSTANT CAS E WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC AND JUSTIFIABLE REASONS DOES NOT MAKE THE CASE GOOD FOR CONDONATION AND THEREFORE, THE CONDONATION SOUGHT I S REJECTED. . 2.4. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND IN ABS ENCE OF GOOD AND JUSTIFIABLE REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS , THE APPEAL FILED BELATEDLY IS HELD TO BE NOT MAINTAINABLE AND THEREF ORE, THE SAME IS NOT ENTERTAINED AND DISMISSED. THIS VIEW IS SUPPORT ED BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS / JUDGMENTS: 4. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTL Y APPRECIATED THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT FILING TH E APPEAL IN TIME. THERE IS NO PLAUSIBLE REASON SHOWN BY THE OL AS TO WHY AP PEAL WAS NOT FILED ITA NO.368/AHD/2017 - 3 - WITHIN THE TIME. CONSIDERING OVERALL CONDUCT OF TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AS WELL AS BEFORE THE ITAT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT PRESENT LITIGATION IS BEING HANDLED IN MOST CASUAL MANNER A ND FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETING THE FORMALITIES THESE APPEALS ARE BEING PREFERRED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AS WELL AS SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN FIRST GROUND. SINCE THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF F ILING THE APPEAL BEYOND TIME LIMIT, AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO TAKE SECOND GROUND ON MERIT. THUS, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH AUGUST, 2018. SD/- SD/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER