Miriyala Surya Praksh, Kakinada V. THE CIT - 2, Visakhapatnam

ITA 57/VIZ/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7540 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 3 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MH MURTHY NAIK
• Assessee Lawyers: SITARAM PAVAN
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

1 आयकर अपीऱीयअधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ, विशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री द ु व्ि ू रु आर एऱ रेड्डी, न्याययक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बाऱाक ृ ष्णन, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.57/Viz/2016 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) Miriyala Surya Prakash, Kakinada. PAN: ADBPM 4184 H Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Visakhapatnam. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Sri Sitaram Pavan प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Sri MH Murthy Naik, CIT-DR स ु नवधई की तधरीख / Date of Hearing : 30/05/2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 14/06/2022 O R D E R PER S. BALAKRISHNAN, Accountant Member : This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT-2, Visakhapatnam in appeal F.No. CIT-2/VSP/263/2014-15, dated 25/03/2015 passed U/s. 263 of the Act for the AY 2010- 11. 2. At the time of hearing before us the Ld. AR submitted that there is a delay of 267 days in filing the appeal before the 2 Tribunal. The assessee filed any petition along with affidavit seeking condonation of delay. The assessee has explained the reasons for delay are extracted here under: “..... 3. The Company has availed Rs. 13.50 Crs loans and the same has become NPA, the bank authorities started the recovery proceedings since 2013 as such, the hotel was in closed condition since 2013. 4. Because of the Mental Agony and torture and f inancial difficulties undergone by the Directors of the company and myself lost control over staff members and office matters. 5. The orders received from CIT-2, Visakhapatnam was misplaced by the staff members. 6. The appeal was filed on 15/02/2016 with a delay of 267 days against the order dated 25/03/2015 of CIT-2, Visakhapatnam as pointed out by the Registry. 7. The delay was neither intentional nor willful delay but beyond the control of the appellant company.” 3. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal is beyond the control of the assessee and therefore taking a lenient view the delay of 267 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal may be condoned and admitted for adjudication of the appeal on merits. 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that the delay of 267 days involved in this appeal and the reason given by the assessee does not constitute ‘sufficient cause’. He further submitted that 3 the assessee is not interested in pursuing its appeal otherwise he would have followed up the matter effectively. Therefore, he prayed that the delay should not be condoned on the reasons given by the assessee. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record and the affidavit filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay. It is apparent from the record that there is an inordinate delay of 267 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. On perusal of the petition filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for such delay, we are of the considered opinion, the reasons advanced by the assessee do not constitute a ‘reasonable / sufficient cause’ for filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit. It is settled principle that each case of the delay it has to be examined on its individual merits and jurisprudence does not extent to accommodating and condoning all inordinate delays. As per section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, any appeal or any application, .................may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. It implies that the delay of each day needs to be justified and there must 4 be sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal which is lacking in the instant case. Therefore, in the instant case, in our considered opinion, since there is no valid reason for filing the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit and with a delay of 267 days, we hereby reject the condonation of delay and accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on the 14 th June, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (द ु व्ि ू रु आर.एऱ रेड्डी) (एस बाऱाक ृ ष्णन) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) न्याययकसदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 14.06.2022 OKK - SPS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. ननधधाररती/ The Assessee – Miriyala Surya Prakash, D.No.8-24-1/6A, Madhavarao Street, Gandhinagar, Kakinada -533004. 2. रधजस्व/The Revenue – Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Visakhapatnam. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 4. आयकर आय ु क्त (अऩीऱ)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Visakhapatnam. 5 5. ववभधगीय प्रनतननधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ववशधखधऩटणम/ DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6. गधर्ा फ़धईऱ / Guard file आदेशधन ु सधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam