Sh. Raj Kumar Pal, Chandigarh V. ITO, W-4(1), Chandigarh

ITA 370/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1583 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Time period of passing order; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 370/CHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SH. RAJ KUMAR PAL, VS. THE ITO, WARD 4(1), FLAT NO.2040-D, CHANDIGARH BLOCK NO. 18, SECTOR 63, CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AHJPP9124A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL, C A RESPONDENT BY : SMT.CHANDERKANTA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 31.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.09.2018 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2016 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)- II, GURGAON [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]. 2. THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY LIMITATION PERIOD O F 364 DAYS. AN APPLICATION DATED 13.6.2018 FOR CONDONATION OF DELA Y HAS BEEN FILED WHICH HAS BEEN ACCOMPANIED WITH AFFIDAVIT OF ASSESS EE, WHEREIN, IT HAS BEEN DEPOSED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED APPE AL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE CIT(A)-I I, CHANDIGARH WHICH WAS LATER ON TRANSFERRED TO CIT(A), GURGAON. HOWEVER, THE SAID APPEAL WAS DISMISSED EX-PARTE AS NOBODY APPEAR ED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICES. IT HAS BE EN FURTHER DEPOSED ITA NO. 370-CHD.-2018 SH. RAJ KUMAR PAL, CHANDIGARH 2 IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT THE SAID NOTICES WERE NOT SER VED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAU SE FOR NON- APPEARANCE BEFORE THE CIT(A). IT HAS BEEN FURTHER DEPOSED IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT AFTER RECEIPT OF THE COPY OF THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A) ON 23.1.2017, HE HAD HANDED OVER THE DOCUMENTS TO HIS COUNSEL SHRI MUKESH GOEL, C.A. BUT THE CONCERNED C.A. DID NOT FI LE THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE NON-FILING OF T HE APPEAL ONLY WHEN HE RECEIVED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR IMPOSITION O F PENALTY. IT HAS, THEREFORE, BEEN STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS P REVENTED FROM REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-FILING OF THE APPEAL IN TI ME. 3. THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER BEEN SUPPORTED WITH THE AFFIDAVIT OF ONE SHRI MUKESH GOYAL S/O SH. R AM NIWAS GOYAL, WHEREIN, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT HE IS A PRACTICIN G C.A. AND MEMBER OF THE ICAI WITH MEMBERSHIP NO. 096887. THAT THE AS SESSEE SHRI RAJ KUMAR PAL HAS COME TO HIS OFFICE FOR FILING OF THE APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), HOWEVER, AT THAT TIME HIS OFFICE WAS UNDER RENOVATION. THAT INADVERTENTLY THE DOCUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE PLACED IN SOME OTHER FILE. THAT THEREAFTER HE (SHRI MUNISH GOYAL) AND HIS SUBORDINATES FORGET ABOUT IT AND THA T IS WHY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE FILED. THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE SHRI RAJ KUMAR PAUL HAD RECEIVED PENALTY NOTICE FROM ASSESSI NG OFFICER THEN HE ENQUIRED HIM ABOUT THE FATE OF APPEAL AND ONLY A T THAT TIME IT WAS REALIZED THAT THE APPEAL HAD NOT BEEN FILED AND TH AT THEREAFTER HE TRACED THE DOCUMENTS AND HANDED OVER THE SAME TO TH E ASSESSEE. THAT SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED OTHER COUNSEL AN D FILED THE ITA NO. 370-CHD.-2018 SH. RAJ KUMAR PAL, CHANDIGARH 3 PRESENT APPEAL. THAT THE DELAY IN IN FILING THE APP EAL WAS NOT DUE TO ANY LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE RATHER ON THE PART OF HIM I.E. THE SAID C.A. WHICH WAS NOT INTENTIONAL. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTS FOR APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND ALSO OF THE AFFIDAVITS AND HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. IN OUR VIEW, THE REASONS SUBMI TTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-FILING OF THE APPEAL IN TIME DO NO T CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. IT SE EMS TO BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTS ON THE FILE SPEAKS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT BOTHER TO ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS B EFORE THE CIT(A) AND AFTER ISSUING SEVERAL NOTICES OF DATE OF HEARIN G, THE LD. CIT(A) PER FORCE PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER. THE ASSESSEE TH EREAFTER DID NOT BOTHER TO FILE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN TH E STIPULATED PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THERE IS A DELAY OF 364 DAYS IN FILI NG THE APPEAL. THE PLEA THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD HANDED OVER THE DOCUMENT S TO THE COUNSEL / C.A. WHO FORGET TO FILE THE APPEAL IS A GENERAL PL EA WHICH NOW-A- DAYS HAS BECOME A REGULAR PRACTICE TO TAKE SUCH PLE A. EVEN THE CONCERNED C.AS BLATANTLY AND UNABASHEDLY WILL CLAIM THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTACTED THEM, HOWEVER, THEY FORGO T TO FILE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW, SUCH A PLEA TA KEN, SO GENERALLY, CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN EACH AND EVERY CASE. THE FACTS ON THE FILE SPEAK THAT THE ASSESSEE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING HAS BEEN RELUCTANT TO PURSUE THE REMEDY OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE THE CIT(A) OR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO ITA NO. 370-CHD.-2018 SH. RAJ KUMAR PAL, CHANDIGARH 4 CONDONE THE DELAY IN THIS CASE. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE, DISMISSED BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION PER IOD. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL, OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.09.2018 SD/- SD/- (B.R.R KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 04.09 .2018 RKK COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT THE CIT(A) THE DR