M/S K.G.N.M.M.W. EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, Jaipur V. ITO, JHALAWAR

ITA 402/JPR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87532 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS NEENA JEPH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 133A; 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NOS. 402 & 403/JP/2012 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S K.G.N.M.M.W. EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH & ANALYSIS SOCIETY, JHALAWAR. CUKE VS. THE I.T.O., JHALAWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAAAK 4637 N VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P C PARWAL (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : MRS. NEENA JEPH SR. DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 18/11/2014 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[ K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13/02/2015 VKNS'K @ ORDER PER: R.P. TOLANI, J.M. THESE ARE TWO ASSESSEES APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER D ATED 28/02/2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), KOTA FOR A. YS. 2005-06 AND 2006-07. COMMON GROUNDS ARE RAISED IN BOTH THE APPE ALS, WHICH ARE AS UNDER: ITA 402 & 403/JP/2012_ KGNMMW EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. ITO 2 GROUND IN ITA 402/JP/2012 (A.Y. 2005-06) 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DENYING THE CLAIM OF EX EMPTION TO THE SOCIETY U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD). HE HAS FURTHER E RRED IN UPHOLDING THE FINDING OF THE A.O. THAT ASSESSEE SOC IETY HAS INFLATED THE EXPENSES, COLLECTED THE DONATION EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO SUCH CLAUSE IN THE OBJECT OF THE SOCIET Y AND THAT THE MOTO OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO EARN PROFIT. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWA NCE OF RS. 9,09,552/- OUT OF SALARY EXPENSES AND RS. 3,40, 190/- OUT OF OTHER EXPENSES. GROUND IN ITA 403/JP/2012 (A.Y. 2006-07) 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DENYING THE CLAIM OF EX EMPTION TO THE SOCIETY U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD). HE HAS FURTHER E RRED IN UPHOLDING THE FINDING OF THE A.O. THAT ASSESSEE SOC IETY HAS INFLATED THE EXPENSES, COLLECTED THE DONATION EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO SUCH CLAUSE IN THE OBJECT OF THE SOCIET Y AND THAT THE MOTO OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO EARN PROFIT. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWA NCE OF RS. 11,08,571/- OUT OF SALARY EXPENSES AND RS. 1,89 ,012/- OUT OF OTHER EXPENSES. 2. THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE FILED LATE BY 3 47 DAYS. AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN FILED . ITA 402 & 403/JP/2012_ KGNMMW EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. ITO 3 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS THE AC T) WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE INSTITUTION ON 02/9 /2005. DURING THE COURSE THEREOF, SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUN D INDICATING THAT THE INSTITUTION WAS BEING RUN WITH PROFIT MOTO AND WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION. AS THE RETURNS WERE NOT FILED, THEREFORE, NOTICES U/S 147 OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED BY AO. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE RETURNS IN PURSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT IN STIPULATE D TIME, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED EX PARTE U/S 144 OF THE ACT . AFTER DETAILED OBSERVATIONS, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE RES PECTIVE YEARS WAS DETERMINED BY AO AS UNDER:- FOR A.Y. 2005-06 DEFICIT AS PER INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT RS. (-) 8151/- ADD-(AS DISCUSSED ABOVE) I. EXCESS PAYMENT OF SALARY RS. 909522/- II. OTHER EXPENSES RS. 340190 /- RS. 1249712 /- TOTAL INCOME RS. 1241561/- R/O RS. 1241560/- FOR A.Y. 2006-07 DEFICIT AS PER INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT RS. (-) 14228/- ADD-(AS DISCUSSED ABOVE) I. EXCESS PAYMENT OF SALARY RS. 1108571/- II. OTHER EXPENSES RS. 189012 /- RS. 1297583 /- TOTAL INCOME RS. 1283355/- R/O RS. 1283360/- ITA 402 & 403/JP/2012_ KGNMMW EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. ITO 4 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL WH ICH WAS DISMISSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) HOLDING AS UNDER:- FOR A.Y. 2005-06 AS MENTIONED ABOVE, IT WAS ADMITTED BY SHRI ABID K HAN, SECRETARY OF SOCIETY IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED DURI NG THE COURSE OF SURVEY THAT EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY AND OTHER HEADS ARE INFLATED. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PURPOSE. SUBSEQUENTLY , NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED BY APPELLANT EITHER BEFORE A. O. OR THE UNDERSIGNED TO PROVE THAT EXPENSES ARE NOT INFLATED . NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED TO PROVE THAT STATEMENT OF SHR I ABID KHAN WAS INCORRECT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, A.O. IS J USTIFIED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF APPELLANT. A.O. IS ALSO JUSTIFIED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 9,09,522/- O UT OF SALARY AND RS. 3,40,190 OUT OF OTHER EXPENSES ON THE BASIS OF CATEGORICAL ADMISSION OF SHRI ABID KHAN IN THIS REG ARD. THE DISALLOWANCES ARE CONFIRMED. GROUND NO. 6,7,8,9 AND 10 ARE THUS DISMISSED. FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AS MENTIONED ABOVE, IT WAS ADMITTED BY SHRI ABID K HAN, SECRETARY OF SOCIETY IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED DURI NG THE COURSE OF SURVEY THAT EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY AND OTHER HEADS ARE INFLATED. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PURPOSE. SUBSEQUENTLY , NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED BY APPELLANT EITHER BEFORE A. O. OR THE UNDERSIGNED TO PROVE THAT EXPENSES ARE NOT INFLATED . NO ITA 402 & 403/JP/2012_ KGNMMW EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. ITO 5 EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED TO PROVE THAT STATEMENT OF SHR I ABID KHAN WAS INCORRECT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, A.O. IS J USTIFIED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF APPELLANT. A.O. IS ALSO JUSTIFIED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 11,08,571/- OUT OF SALARY AND RS. 1,89,012/- OUT OF OTHER EXPENSES ON THE BAS IS OF CATEGORICAL ADMISSION OF SHRI ABID KHAN IN THIS REG ARD. THE DISALLOWANCES ARE CONFIRMED. GROUND NO. 6,7,8,9 AND 10 ARE THUS DISMISSED. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN THESE BELATED APPE ALS BEFORE US. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ADVERTED TO THE CONDONATION PETITION, WHICH NARRATES AS UNDER:- WITH REFERENCE TO ABOVE, WE BEG TO SUBMIT THAT FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF CA KAUSHAL AGARWAL AS ENCLOSED, ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE I TAT WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED AS PER THE STATUTE. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS FILING APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BEFORE HONBLE ITAT. IT I S, THEREFORE, REQUESTED TO KINDLY CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND OBLIGE. 6. THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT DEPOSES AS UNDER:- I, CA. KAUSHAL AGARWAL, SON OF SH. MOHANLAL AGARWAL, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MANGALPURA, JHALAWAR (RAJASTHAN) DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM ON OATH AS UNDER:- ITA 402 & 403/JP/2012_ KGNMMW EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. ITO 6 1. THAT I AM A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT BY PROFESSION PRACT ICING IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF AGARWAL KAUSHAL & COMPANY A T JHALAWAR (RAJ.). 2. THAT I HAVE APPEARED BEFORE CIT(A) KOTA IN THE APPEA L MATTER OF M/S K.G.N.M.M.W. EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH & ANALYSIS SOCIETY, JHALAWAR FOR A.Y. 05-06 AND 06-07. THIS APPEAL WAS DECIDED BY CIT(A) AGAINST THE SOCIETY & OR DER WAS SENT TO THE SOCIETY IN THE MONTH OF MARCH 2011. 3. THAT SH. MALIK PARVEJ, PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY, HAN DED ME THE SAID ORDER SOMETIME IN THE FIRST WEEK OF APRIL 2 011 FOR NECESSARY ACTION. I KEPT THE ORDER WITH ME FOR FILIN G THE APPEAL BEFORE I.T.A.T.. IN THE MEANWHILE, I WENT TO NAGAUR (RAJ.) FOR BANK AUDIT OF ABBJ. WHEN I RETURN ED BACK FROM BANK AUDIT, THE FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE I TAT SKIPPED FROM MY MIND AND PAPERS WERE FILED IN MY REC ORD. 4. THAT NOW WHEN SH. MALIK PARVEJ, PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIE TY, APPROACHED ME WITH THE NOTICE OF TRO DT. 02.03.2012 F OR RECOVERY OF DEMAND FOR THESE A.Y.S ON 20.03.2012, IT CAME TO MY NOTICE THAT APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE ITAT HAS NOT BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5. THAT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS A DELAY IN FIL ING OF APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE ITAT IN ABOVE CASE DUE TO MY MISTAKE. 6. THAT THE FACTS STATED IN PARA 1 TO 5 ABOVE ARE TRUE & CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE & BELIEF. ITA 402 & 403/JP/2012_ KGNMMW EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. ITO 7 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THA T THE CONCERNED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT HAS ADMITTED THAT TH E IMPUGNED ORDERS OF CIT(A) WERE HANDED OVER TO HIM BY THE ASSES SEE IN THE FIRST WEEK OF APRIL, 2011 FOR FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE IT AT. THEREAFTER, HE PROCEEDED TO NAGAUR FOR SBBJ BANKS AUDIT AND ON RE TURN, FILING OF ASSESSEES APPEALS SKIPPED FROM HIS MIND. THIS FACT REVIVED IN HIS MEMORY WHEN THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TRO NOTICE DATED 2 ND MARCH, 2011 AND THEREAFTER THE APPEALS ARE FILED BEFORE THE ITA T ON 24/7/2012. IT IS PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT SUFFER FOR THE MISTAKES COMMITTED BY HIS C.A. AS THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY A SUFFI CIENT CAUSE IN FILING THE APPEALS IN TIME, THEREFORE, THE DELAY OF 347 DA YS MAY BE CONDONED. 7.1 RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE S UPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION V. MST. KAT IJI (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT WHEN TECHNICAL CONSIDE RATIONS AND CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE SHOULD PREVAIL. WHILE CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL A PEDANTIC VIEW MAY NOT BE TAKEN. 8. THE LEARNED D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY O PPOSED THE ASSESSEES PETITIONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. IT I S PLEADED THAT: ITA 402 & 403/JP/2012_ KGNMMW EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. ITO 8 (I) NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR THE C.A. HAS GIVEN AN Y SPECIFIC AND GENUINE REASON TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE EXISTS A REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO CONDONE THE DELAY. (II) IT IS TRITE LAW THAT IT IS THE BURDEN OF THE A SSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY OF EVERY DAY IN A REASONABLE MANNER. (III) THE ASSESSMENTS RESULTED IN HUGE ADDITIONS AN D FOR TWO YEARS HEAVY DEMAND OF TAX AND INTEREST WAS RAISED. TH IS WAS A SERIOUS MATTER, WHICH IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD REQUIRE FREQUENT MEETINGS AND CONSULTATIONS BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND THE COUNSEL T O ANALYZE THE ISSUES. SUCH MATTERS CANNOT BE LEFT TO GET AND FORG OT THE PAPERS ATTITUDE OF THE CA. THE THEORY, VAGUE AND TOO NAVE TO BE BELIEVED. (IV) THE AFFIDAVIT FAILS TO REFLECT IN CREDIBILITY INASMUCH AS NEITHER ANY PARTICULAR DATES NOR EVENTS ARE MENTION ED TO OBJECTIVELY CORROBORATE THE DEPOSITIONS. THE VISIT OF MR. MALIK PARVEJ, PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY IS REFERRED TO SOME TIME IN FIRST WEEK O F APRIL, WHICH IS A VAGUE DEPOSITION. SIMILARLY THE DATES WHEN CA PROCE EDED FOR SBBJ AUDIT AND RETURNED THERE FROM HAVE NOT BEEN SPECIFIED SO THE DEPOSITION REMAINS VAGUE AND UNVERIFIABLE. ITA 402 & 403/JP/2012_ KGNMMW EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. ITO 9 (V) THE C.A. HAS GONETO NAGAU FOR ASSIGNMENT OF SBB J BANK AUDIT OF, THE TIME SCHEDULE MUST BE PRE-DECIDED, NO PERTINENT DETAILS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN THE AFFIDAVIT. (VI) IT IS SURPRISING AND DOES NOT APPEAL TO LOGIC THAT NEITHER ANY OFFICE ASSISTANT FROM THE TEAM OF C.A. OR ASSESSEE REMINDED HIM DURING ONE YEAR ABOUT NON FILING OF SUCH IMPORTANT AND HIG H DEMAND APPEALS. (VII) NO AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI MALIK PARVEJ IS FILED T O CORROBORATE THE DEPOSITION OF THE C.A.. (VIII) THE NOTICE OF TRO DATED 2 ND MARCH, 2012 IS MENTIONED AS AN EYE OPENER FOR THE CA AND ASSESSEE TO FILE THE A PPEALS WHEREAS IN INCOME TAX PROCEEDING, ASSESSEE IS REMINDED TO PAY THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND OF TAX AND INTEREST NOT ONLY ON TELEPHONE BU T BY OTHER NOTICE FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE SENDING DEFAULT C ASES TO TRO. (IX) NO AVERMENT IS MADE IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT EXC EPT TRO NOTICE, NO OTHER COMMUNICATION WAS MADE BY DEPARTMEN T EITHER BY WAY OF TELEPHONE OR IN WRITING. (X) SHRI MALIK PARVEJ HAS NOT FILED ANY AFFIDAVIT TO CORROBORATE THE VERSION THAT IN FACT THAT ANYBODY FROM ASSESSE ES SIDE NEVER VISITED OR REMINDED THE CA ABOUT SUCH A HUGE OUTSTANDING DE MAND AND PENDING APPEALS, MORE SO WHEN THE ISSUES ABOUT RETUR NS OF SUBSEQUENT ITA 402 & 403/JP/2012_ KGNMMW EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. ITO 10 YEARS ARE PROCESS OF REGISTRATION MAY HAVE BEEN DIS CUSSED BETWEEN THEM. (XI) IT IS VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED BY LD. DR THAT THE AFFIDAVIT IS TOTALLY VAGUE, GENERAL AND DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE DEL AY ON DAY TO DAY BASIS AND REASONABLE AND CONVINCING AVERMENTS ARE T OTALLY MISSING. THE DELAY IS NOT OF FEW DAYS BUT OF ABOUT A YEAR I.E. 3 47 DAYS. IF SUCH DELIBERATE DELAY IS CONDONED ON VAGUE PLEADINGS, IT WILL NOT BE CONDUCIVE OF THE JUDICIALLY SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF N ATURAL JUSTICE LIKE DELAY DEFEATS EQUITY AND LAW HELPS DILIGENT AND NOT THE IN DOLENT. (XII) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED EVIDENCE TO SUPPOR T THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT, THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSES SEE AND AVERMENTS SUFFER FROM INNUMERABLE LATCHES AND INCONSISTENCIES AND DO NOT CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT REASONS AS PROPER BASIS FOR C ONDONATION OF SUCH PROLONGED DELAY. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. WE FI ND MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED DR. THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY FIL ED A VAGUE AND GENERAL AFFIDAVIT FROM THE CA WHICH UTTERLY LACKS A NY SPECIFIC CONTENTIONS AND FAILS TO EXPLAIN DAY TO DAY DELAY I N REASONABLE MANNER. THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER FILED ANY EVIDENCE NOR THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI ITA 402 & 403/JP/2012_ KGNMMW EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. ITO 11 MALIK PARVEJ TO CORROBORATE THE VAGUE AFFIDAVIT BY THE C.A.. IT DOES NOT CONFORM TO GENERAL HUMAN CONDUCT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTAN CES, PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES AND SURROUNDING CIRC UMSTANCES WHICH FORM SINE QUA NON IN THE MATTERS OF CONDONATION OF DELAY. IT IS UNBELIEVABLE THAT AN ASSESSEE, WHOSE TAXABLE INCOME IS CLAIMED TO BE NIL IS TAXED FOR TWO YEARS ASSESSED AT SUCH A HIGH INCOME RESULTING IN A HUGE TAX AND INTEREST DEMAND WILL NOT VISIT THE C.A. OFFICE ALMOST FOR A PERIOD OF ABOUT ONE YEAR TO KNOW ABOUT THE FILING OF THE APPEALS. THERE IS NO DEPOSITION IN THE AFFIDAVIT THA T PRIOR TO TRO NOTICE DATED 02/3/2012, NO OTHER NOTICE BY WAY OF TELEPHONE OR WRITING WAS RECEIVED EITHER BY ASSESSEE OR THE C.A. THUS, THE D EPOSITIONS IN AFFIDAVIT REMAIN VAGUE, UNSUBSTANTIATED AND DO NOT AMOUNT TO EXPLAINING THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE. 10. THE AFFIDAVIT AND CAVALIER CONDUCT OF SHRI KAU SHAL AGARWAL, C.A. RAISES SERIOUS QUESTIONS ON HIS PROFESSIONAL COMPET ENCE AND WORK ETHICS IN GIVING SUCH AN AFFIDAVIT WHICH HIDES MORE THAN I T EXPLAINS. THE BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO REASONABLY EXPLAIN DAY TO DAY DELAY AND ESTABLISH THAT THERE EXISTED REASONABLE AND SUFFICI ENT CAUSE IN DELAYING THE FILING OF APPEALS FOR ABOUT 1 YEAR. IF THE PROP ER DATES OR OCCASIONS ARE NOT MENTIONED WITH PROPER FACTS THEN THE DELAY C ANNOT BE ITA 402 & 403/JP/2012_ KGNMMW EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. ITO 12 CONDONED. IN THIS BEHALF, WE RELY ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MADHU DADHA VS. ACIT (2009 ) 317 ITR 458 (MAD). THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER:- HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT IT WAS CLEAR THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EXPLAINED THE CAUSE OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WHO WAS GIVEN CHARGE TO FILE THE APPEAL HAD DIED EXACTLY ONE YEAR AFTER THE LAST DATE FOR FILING OF THE APPEAL. EVEN AFTER THE DEATH OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN MO RE THAN SIX MONTHS TO FILE THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAD NEITHER GIVEN ANY PARTICULAR OR DETAILS IN THE AFFIDAVIT AS TO THE DA TE ON WHICH THE PAPERS WERE HANDED OVER TO THE COUNSEL FOR PREPARING THE APPEAL AND ON WHAT OCCASION THE ASSESSEE ENQUIRED ABOUT THE PROGRESS IN PREPARING THE APPEAL AND FILING IT. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT TAKEN A PROPER PLEA TO SHOW SUFFICIENT CAUSE GIVING EVIDEN CE AND PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR THE DELAY. THERE WAS NO N EED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS JUDGMENT, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT CITATIO N I.E. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI (SUPRA) HAS ALSO B EEN CONSIDERED. WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF LD. DR THAT LAW HEL PS DILIGENT AND NOT THE INDOLENT AS WELL AS THE AXIOMATIC DELAY DEFEATS EQUITY. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CONDONATION PETITI ONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD, FAIL TO INVOKE ANY ITA 402 & 403/JP/2012_ KGNMMW EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. ITO 13 CONFIDENCE, FAIL TO EXPLAIN REASONABLE AND SUFFICIE NT CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF LONG DELAY OF 347 DAYS IN FILING THE SE APPEALS . THE ASSESSEE HAS TO COME CLEAN WITH ALL THE RELEVANT FAC TS, WHICH HAPPENED IN THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO EXPLA IN ALL THE EVENTS AND BE SPECIFIC IN THE DATES. THE DEPOSITIONS MADE I N THE C.A. AFFIDAVIT REMAIN UNCORROBORATED AND THERE IS NO AFFIDAVIT FRO M THE SAID SHRI MALIK PARVEJ IN SUPPORT OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF C.A.. THUS, TH E VAGUE AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY THE C.A. REMAINS UNCORROBORATED AND UNRELIABLE. IN THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DECLINE TO C ONDONE THE DELAY OF 347 DAYS IN FILING THESE APPEALS. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13/02/2015. SD/- SD/- VH-VKJ-EHUK VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH (T.R. MEENA) (R.P.TOLANI) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ @ JAIPUR FNUKAD @ DATED:- 13 TH FEBRUARY, 2015 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- M/S K.G.N.M.M.W. EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH & ANALYSIS SOCIETY, JHALAWAR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, JHALAWAR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A), KOTA. ITA 402 & 403/JP/2012_ KGNMMW EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. ITO 14 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT, JAIPUR 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 402 & 403/JP/2012) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR