M/S AQUA TRADERS, SRINAGAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), SRINAGAR

ITA 434/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6978 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 11-04-2019
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 434/ASR/2017 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 AQUA TRADERS, MADINA CHOWK, GOWKADAL, SRINAGAR, KASHMIR [PAN: AAPFA 2953B] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), RAJ BAGH, SRINAGAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. BASHIR AHMED LONE (C.A.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS (D .R.) DATE OF HEARING: 11.04.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.04.2019 ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), JAMMU ('CIT(A )' FOR SHORT) DATED 29.3.2016, PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CO NTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT' HEREI NAFTER) DATED 13.02.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2012-13. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE BENCH THAT THE APPEAL IS TIME-BARRED BY 344 DAYS; THE APPEAL HAVING BEEN, AS AGAINST THE DU E DATE OF 19.07.2016 IN-AS- MUCH AS THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS COMMUNICATED, AS STA TED IN FORM 36, ON 20.5.2016) , FILED ON 17.10.2017. THE CONDONATION APPLICATION DATED 12.6.2017 ACCOMPANYING THE APPEAL MEMO EXPLAINS THE DELAY AS ON ACCOUNT OF, FIRSTLY, CURFEW ITA NO. 434/ASR/2017 (AY 2012-13) AQUA TRADERS V. ITO 2 AND STRIKE IN THE VALLEY. FURTHER, THAT SH. SHAKEEL AHMAD MATTA, PARTNER, WHO LOOKS AFTER THE TAX AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE -FIRM WAS FULLY ENGAGED WITH HIS AUNT, HOSPITALIZED AT NEW DELHI, ACCOMPANYING HER T ILL MAY, 2017. IMPLIEDLY, ONLY THEREAFTER HE COULD ATTEND TO HIS WORK AND, CONSEQU ENTLY, FILE THE APPEAL. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND GIVEN A CAREFUL CO NSIDERATION TO THE MATTER. THE ASSESSEES CONDONATION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE FOR MORE THAN ONE REASON. TO BEGIN WITH, THE APPLICATION ITSELF, WHICH IS NOT AC COMPANIED BY AN AFFIDAVIT, AS IT OUGHT TO BE, IS NOT VALID IN LAW AS IT IS NOT BY TH E CONCERNED PARTNER OR EVEN ANY OTHER PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM, BUT BY SH. BASH IR AHMAD LONE, THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL. NO PART OF THE DELAY IS, IT MAY BE CLARIFI ED, ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE COUNSEL. THE CONDONATION APPLICATION IS IN FACT EVEN OTHERWISE W ITHOUT ANY MERIT. THE LAST DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN IN A CASE WHERE THE ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED, AS IN THE INSTANT CASE, IS 30 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER OF THE FOLLOWING YEAR, I.E., 30.0 9.2016, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2016-17. IN CASE OF DISLOC ATION OF PUBLIC LIFE FOR ANY REASON, AS FOR EXAMPLE THE FLOODS OF 2014 INUNDATIN G SRINAGAR, THE PERIOD FOR FILING RETURNS IS USUALLY EXTENDED, AS WAS UP TO 30.11.201 4 FOR AY 2014-15 BY CBDT. THERE IS NO STATED EXTENSION FOR AY 2016-17. THE RE TURN FOR THIS YEAR WOULD STAND TO BE FURNISHED DURING THE MONTHS OF APRIL TO SEPTE MBER, 2016, I.E., THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE INSTANT APPEAL OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE IS NO INDICATION OF THE DISLOCATION OF PUBLIC LIFE, AS CONTENDED, DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD IN SRINAGAR. IN FACT, EVEN THE TIME PERIOD UP TO WHICH THE SAID DISLOCATION CONTINUED, ASSUMING SO, IS NOT SPECIFIE D . FURTHER, THE AUNT (OF THE PARTNER SH. SAKIL AHMED MATA) IS NOT SPECIFIED, I.E ., STATING HER NAME AS WELL AS THE RELATION WITH THE ASSESSEE, SO THAT THE EXPLANATION IS VAGUE . THERE IS NO MENTION OF HER AILMENT/S, OR OF THE PERIOD DURING WHICH SHE WA S HOSPITALIZED AT NEW DELHI, WITH EVEN THE NAME OF THE MEDICAL INSTITUTION WHERE SHE WAS; AGAIN, ASSUMING SO, ITA NO. 434/ASR/2017 (AY 2012-13) AQUA TRADERS V. ITO 3 HOSPITALIZED, BEING CONSPICUOUS BY ITS NON-MENTION. THERE IS, THEN, NO CONTENTION, THAT SHE WAS DEPENDENT SOLELY OR SUBSTANTIALLY ON S H. SHAKEEL AHMAD MATTA, FOR HIM TO HAVE LEFT HIS HOME AND BUSINESS TO ATTEND TO HER. I SAY SO AS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF EVENTS, ONLY CLOSE RELATIVES AND, THEN, A GAIN, BY TURNS, WOULD ATTEND TO HER IN-AS-MUCH AS IT IS EXTREMELY DISLOCATING AND DISTU RBING TO OVERLOOK FAMILY AND WORK DUTIES FOR A CONTINUOUS PERIOD OF TIME, WHICH IN THE PRESENT CASE APPEARS TO BE EXTEND TO ALMOST A YEAR. IT IS IN FACT HIGHLY IM PROBABLE THAT THE SAID PARTNER WOULD NOT HAVE VISITED SRINAGAR, WHICH RATHER SHOUL D BE AT INTERVALS OF TIME, TO LOOK AFTER HIS AFFAIRS THEREAT. FURTHER STILL, AS R EVEALED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSMENTS PROCEEDINGS WERE ATTENDED BY ANOTHE R PARTNER, SH. SAJAD AHMAD PATHAN. IT IS THEREFORE INCORRECT TO SAY THAT SH. S HAKEEL AHMAD MATTA LOOKS AFTER THE TAX AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. RATHER, EVEN SO, SO DOES SH. SAJAD AHMAD PATHAN. IF THE SAID PARTNER COULD ATTEND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HE COULD AS WELL FILE THE APPEAL; RATHER, IS BETTER EQ UIPPED TO DO SO. FINALLY, THE APPLICATION STATES THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY ONLY U P TO MAY, 2017, I.E., WHEN THE CONCERNED PARTNER CAME BACK FROM NEW DELHI, SO THAT THERE IS NO EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY THEREAFTER; THE APPEAL HAVING BEEN FILED ONLY ON 17.10.2017. THE VERY FACT THAT THE CONDONATION APPLICATION WAS MADE ON 12.6.2 017 , WHICH HAS NOT BE REVISED, SUGGESTS THAT THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE DELAY THER EAFTER. NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE, IN MY VIEW, HAS BEEN STATED, M UCH LESS SHOWN, SO THAT THE CONDONATION APPLICATION IS WITHOUT MERIT. RATHE R, APART FROM ITS MERITS; BEING NOT BY THE CONCERNED PERSON AS WELL AS BEING NOT AC COMPANIED BY AN AFFIDAVIT THEREFROM, IT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AT THE THRESHOLD. 4. I, ACCORDINGLY, DO NOT CONSIDER IT TO BE A FIT C ASE FOR THE CONDONATION OF THE DELAY, WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY DENIED. THE APPEAL, CON SEQUENTLY, IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. ITA NO. 434/ASR/2017 (AY 2012-13) AQUA TRADERS V. ITO 4 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN CO URT ON APRIL 29, 2019 SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 29.04.2019 /GP/SR. PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT: AQUA TRADERS, MADINA CHOWK, GOWKADAL, SRINAGAR, KASHMIR (2) THE RESPONDENT: INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3( 1), RAJ BAGH, SRINAGAR (3) THE CIT(APPEALS), JAMMU (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR. DR, I.T.A.T TRUE COPY BY ORDER