HEMRAJ, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 404/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5446 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJ MEHRA JCIT DR DHK
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 404/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI HEMRAJ VILLAGE: LALYA KA VAS POST: MAHAPURA, DISTT. JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 7 (2) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AFRPV 1006 K VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: SHRI MUKESH KHANDELWAL, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY :SHRI RAJ MEHRA, JCIT - DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 12/01/2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 /02/2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-III, JAIPUR DATED 19-09-2011 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2006-07 WHEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE RAISED. 1 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED SERIOUSLY IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS IN PASSING ANY ORDER WITHOUT ALLOWING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED SERIOUSLY ON THE FACTS IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS. 13.00 LACS BEING THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELL ANT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ITA NO. 404/JP/2013 SHRI HEMRAJ VS. ITO, WARD- 7 (2), JAIPUR . 2 2.1 AT THE OUTSET, IT IS FOUND THAT THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE IS INORDINATELY DELAY BY 472 DAYS. CONDONATION PETITIO N WITH AFFIDAVIT IS FILED IN THIS BEHALF. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE CONTENDS THAT ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS. (I) IN FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) NEITHER T HE APPELLANT NOR HIS AUTHORIZED COUNSEL COULD ATTEND T HE PROCEEDINGS AND HENCE THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED HIS APP ELLATE ORDER WITHOUT HEARING THE APPELLANT. (II) TILL VERY RECENTLY THE APPELLANT WAS ABSOLUTEL Y UNAWARE ABOUT SUCH ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) A ND HE ONLY CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE SAME WHEN ORDER LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271(1)( C) AND 271(1)( B) WERE PASSED D URING MARCH, 2013 WHICH CAME IN POSSESSION OF HIS FATHER. (III) THE ASSESSEE IS A VILLAGER, GRADUATE IN SANSK RIT IS ABSOLUTELY UNAWARE ABOUT RIGOROUS PROVISIONS OF INC OME-TAX LAW AND ON ACCOUNT OF HIS MENTAL DISTURBANCE DUE T O BEING UNEMPLOYED HE DID NOT CONTRACT HIS COUNSEL ABOUT AN Y SUCH ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND EVEN HIS AUTHORI ZED COUNSEL DID NOT HANDOVER THE SAID ORDER TO THE APPE LLANT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE DELA Y MAY BE CONDONED AND APPEAL MAY BE HEARD ON MERITS. 2.2 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE D THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. AR AND CONTENDS AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 404/JP/2013 SHRI HEMRAJ VS. ITO, WARD- 7 (2), JAIPUR . 3 (I) ASSESSEE IS HABITUAL DEFAULTER, NON-COOPERATIVE AND HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY REMAINING ABSENT FROM ALL THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW. (II) REFERENCE IS MADE TO AOS ORDER WHERE IT IS CL EARLY MENTIONED THAT VIDE NOTICE U/S 142(1)(A) DATED 14-0 2-2007, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO FILE THE RETURN OF IN COME ON OR BEFORE 20-03-2007 WHICH WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH BY TH E ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS REMINDED AGAIN VIDE NOTI CE DATED 7-06-2007. ON 28-06-2007, THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF F ILING THE RETURN REPLIED THAT PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER HAS BE EN APPLIED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND AT ALL TO FINALIZE THE ASSESSMENT, THE SAME WAS PASSED U/S 144 OF THE ACT. (III) THE ASSESSEE FILED FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE LD . CIT(A) WHERE ALSO 10 OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN WHICH ARE TA BULATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT PAGES 2 AND 3 OF HIS ORDER. TH E LD. CIT(A) WAS LEFT WITH NO OPTION BUT TO DECIDE THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX-PARTE WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THE MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON RECORD. (IV) BEFORE ITAT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BE EN FILED LATE BY 472 DAYS WHICH IS AN INORDINATE DELAY. THE REASONS ITA NO. 404/JP/2013 SHRI HEMRAJ VS. ITO, WARD- 7 (2), JAIPUR . 4 GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT EXPLAIN DAY TO DAY DEF AULT IN LATE FILING THE APPEAL. THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND AO ARE BASELESS. THERE IS NO PRO OF ABOUT ASSESSEE BEING DISTURBED DUE TO UNEMPLOYMENT AND TH E ASSESSEE BEING GRADUATE IS NOT AWARE OF THE PROVISI ONS OF THE LAWS. WHEN THE ASSESSEE CAN FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND ITAT, IT CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE ASSE SSEE KNOWS ABOUT THE LAWS AND THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE A SSESSEE IN CONDONATON PETITION ARE INCORRECT, VAGUE AND GEN ERAL IN NATURE, THEY ARE DEVOID OF ANY OBJECTIVE AND CORROB ORATED FACTS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASONA BLE EXPLANATION IN LATE FILING THE APPEAL, THE CONDONAT ON PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. 2.3 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTIO NS OF THE LD. DR. THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF INDICATES THAT THE AS SESSEE IS NON-COOPERATIVE AND HE HAS CALLOUS ATTITUDE IN INCOME TAX PROCEEDIN GS. THE REASONS GIVEN FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY DO NOT INSPIRE ANY CONFIDE NCE AND REASONABLE CAUSE IN DAY TO DAY DELAY IN LATE FILING OF THE APP EAL REMAINS UNEXPLAINED. IN VIEW THEREOF, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CONDONATI ON PETITION OF THE ITA NO. 404/JP/2013 SHRI HEMRAJ VS. ITO, WARD- 7 (2), JAIPUR . 5 ASSESSEE WHICH IS DISMISSED. SINCE THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION, THERE IS NO NECESSITY T O GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE ASSESSEE'S GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THUS THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. 3.0 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23/ 02/ 2016 SD/- VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH (R.P.TOLANI) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 23/02/ 2016 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI HEMRAJ, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- 7 (2), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 404/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR