Raj Kumar, Ambala City V. ITO (TDS), Panchkula

ITA 521/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64011 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: H K JINDAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 521/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) RAJ KUMAR, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS) PROP.AGGARWAL INDUSTRIES, PANCHKULA. JAROT ROAD, AMBALA CITY. PAN: RTKS07701B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI H.K.JINDAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 30.10.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.10.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M, : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA DAT ED 26.07.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AGAINST THE PEN ALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE WHILE CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.10000/- IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 272B. 3. BEFORE GOING INTO MERITS OF THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL WE FIND THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED AFTER A DELAY OF 222 DAYS. THE REGISTRY HAD ISSUED A DEFECT NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVE R, NO REPLY WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR C ONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL TILL 29.10.2012. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE 2 ASSESSEE APPEARED ON 29.10.2012 AND IT WAS POINTED OUT TO HIM THAT NO APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED TILL DATE FOR CONDONATIO N OF DELAY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW ON 30.10.2012 MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL LATE BY 222 DAYS. THE C ONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IS AS UNDER: THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH CHANDIGARH SUB:- APPEAL AGAINST ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS) PUNCHKULLA CO NDONATION OF DELAY 1 AM FILING ALONG WITH THIS LETTER APPEAL AGAINST T HE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS) PUNCHKULLA U/S 272B. I WANTED TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF HON ORABLE CIT APPEALS IMMEDIATELY ON RECEIPT OF THE ORDER BUL NO ONE WAS READY TO TAK E MY CASE. I TRIED TO APPOINT AN ATTORNEY IN CHANDIGARH BUT THE FEE DEMANDED WAS MORE THEN THE AMOUNT OF PENALTY. IN THIS PROCESS SOMEONE GUIDED ME TO CA HA RDESH KANT JINDAL, WHO INFORMED ME THAT HE IS SUFFERING FROM STONE IN HIS GAL BLADDER AND CAN TAKE UP THE CASE THERE AFTER ONLY. HE SUGGESTED ME TO TRY S OMEONE ELSE BUT IN VAIN. NOW CA HARDESH KANT JINDAL HAS GOT HIMSELF OPERATED IN FORTIES HOSPITALS AND HAVE FULLY RECOVERED. NOW WE ARE FILING THE APP EAL. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES I REQUEST TO PLEASE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL. THANKING YOU FOR AGGARWAL INDUSTRIES : RAJ KUMAR 5. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE STRESSED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE N OT BEING ABLE TO APPOINT THE COUNSEL IN THIS REGARD. 6. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CA SE AND FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS WE FIND THAT THE PRESENT APP EAL HAS BEEN FILED AFTER A DELAY OF 222 DAYS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 1.8.2011 AND THE AP PEAL HAS BEEN FILED ON 9.5.2012. THE HON'BLE COURTS HAVE LAID DOWN THE PROPOSITION THAT 3 WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME THEN THE DELAY IN FURNISHING THE SAI D APPEAL MAY BE CONDONED. THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLI SH THAT IT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN NOT FURNISHING THE SAID APPEAL IN TIME. HOWEVER, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST UPON HIM. THE AS SESSEE HAS FURNISHED ON RECORD AN AFFIDAVIT TO SUPPORT ITS PLEA OF CONDO NATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, STATING AS UNDER: AFFIDIVIT I RAJ KUMAR PROP. M/S AGGARWAL INDUSTRIES JAROT ROA D AMBALA DO SOLEMNLY DECLARE AND VERIFY AS UNDER L. THAT I HAVE FILED AN APPEAL IN THE INCOME TAX AP PELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09. 2. THAT THE SAID APPEAL IS LISTED AT CASE NO521 / CHANDI/2012 BEFORE 'A'BENCH OF CHANDIGARH CHAPTER OF INCOME TAX APPELL ATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH 3. THAT THE SAID APPEAL WAS DELAYED BY 222 DAYS 4. THAT THE DEPONENT HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CON DONATION OF THE DELAY. 5. THAT I WANTED TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORD ER OF HONORABLE C1T APPEALS IMMEDIATELY ON RECEIPT OF THE ORDER BUT NO ONE WAS READY TO TAKE MY CASE. I TRIED TO APPOINT AN ATTORNEY IN CHANDIGARH BUT THE FEE DEMANDED WAS MORE THEN THE AMOUNT OF PENALTY. I N THIS PROCESS SOMEONE GUIDED ME TO CA HARDESH KANT JINDAL, WHO IN FORMED ME THAT HE IS SUFFERING FROM STONE IN HIS GAL BLADDER AND CAN TAKE UP THE CASE THERE AFTER ONLY. HE SUGGESTED ME TO TRY SOMEONE EL SE BUT IN VAIN. HOWEVER WHEN HE AGREED THE APPEAL WAS FILED. DATE - PLACE - SD/- DEPONENT VERIFICATION. I THE ABOVE MENTIONED DEPONENT VERIFY THAT THE CONT ENTS OF ABOVE AFFIDAVIT ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF AND NOTHING HAS BEEN CONCEALED THEREIN. DATE - PLACE - SD/- DEPONENT 7. IN THE PRESENT SET OF FACTS WHERE THE ASSESSEE H AS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST UPON HIM TO REASONABLY EXPL AIN THE REASON FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME, WE FIND NO MERI T IN THE CLAIM OF THE 4 ASSESSEE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE DELAY IN FURNISHING T HE PRESENT APPEAL IS NOT CONDONED AND THE APPEAL BEING FILED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 8. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGGRIEVED BY LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.10,00 0/-. THE SAID PENALTY HAD BEEN LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R THE DEFAULT OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT FURNISHING THE PAN NUMBER OF ONE DE DUCTEE IN E-TDS RETURN FILED IN FORM NO.26Q ON 30.6.2008. THE ASSE SSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH THE CORRECTION STATEMENT EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE CIT (APPEALS). IN THE ABOVE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, LE VY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE ACT OF RS.10,000/- IS UPHELD. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE BEING FILED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 31 ST OCTOBER, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH