Srinivasa Reddy Morthala, Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 647/HYD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7826 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-08-2018
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M H NAIK
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Agreed addition; Time period of passing order; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI I NTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 647/HYD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 2013 SRINIVASA REDDY MORTHALA, HYDERABAD. PAN: AFTPM 5606 G VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 17(1) HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI S. RAMA RAO REVENUE BY: SHRI M.H. NAIK, DR DATE OF HEARING: 07.08.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14 TH AUGUST, 2018 ORDER PER I NTURI RAMA RAO, A.M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2017 OF CIT(A) - 5, HYDERABAD FOR A.Y. 2012 - 13. THE APPELLANT RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONDONING DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE PETITION REQUESTING FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND CIT(A) CONDONED THE DELAY. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN TREATING 20% OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME ADMITTED OF RS. 14,05,071/ - AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 2. WE FIND THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DENYING THE CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 344 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). WHILE REFUSING THE CONDONATION OF DELAY 2 AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN LIMINE , LD. CIT(A) RELIED UPON CERTAIN JUDGMENTS AND HELD AS UNDER: - 4.6 THE DELAY CANNOT BE CONDONED SIMPLY BECAUSE THE APPELLANTS CASE IS HARD AND CALLS FOR SYMPATHY OR MERELY OUT OF BENEVOLENCE TO THE PARTY SEEKING RELIEF. IN GRANTING THE INDULGENCE AND CONDONING THE DELAY IT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND THE SHADOW OF DOUBT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS DILIGENT AND WAS NOT GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE WHATSOEVER. THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE LIMITATION PROVISION MUST BE A CAUSE WHICH IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PARTY INVOKING THE AID OF THE PROVISIONS. THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMLAL VS. REWA COALFIELDS LTD., AIR 1962 SC 361 HAS HELD THAT THE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WHICH BY DUE CARE AND ATTENTION COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED CANNOT BE A SUFFICIENT CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LIMITATION P ROVISION. WHERE NO NEGLIGENCE, NOR INACTION, OR WANT OF BONAFIDES CAN BE IMPUTED TO THE APPELLANT A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROVISIONS HAS TO BE MADE IN ORDER TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. SEEKERS OF JUSTICE MUST COME WITH CLEAN HANDS. [JCIT VS. TR ACTORS & FARM EQUIPMENTS LTD (ITAT, CHENNAI) 104 ITR 149 FOLLOWED]. 4.7. IN THE PRESENT CASE, I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT JUSTIFIED THE DELAY ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER GREAT MENTAL STRESS AND WAS PRE - OCCUPIED WITH THE AFFAIR S OF THE COMPANY FARMAX INDIA LTD. CONSEQUENTLY THE DELAY WAS CAUSED. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE DELAY WAS DUE TO THE NEGLIGENCE AND INACTION ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT COULD HAVE VERY WELL AVOIDED THE DELAY BY THE EXERCISE OF DUE CARE AND ATTENTION. IN MY OPINION THERE EXISTS NO SUFFICIENT AND GOOD REASON FOR THE DELAY OF 344 DAYS. SUCH INORDINATE DELAY CANNOT BE CONDONED ON THE PLEA THAT IT MISSED THE ATTENTION. AS THE CONDONATION IN THE PRESENT CASE WOULD NOT BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXPOSITION EMANATING OUT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT AND HONBLE HIGH COURT DECISIONS CITED SUPRA. IT WILL RATHER BE GRAVE PREJUDICE TO THE DEPARTMENT. AS ALREADY EXPRESSED BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE CITED SUPRA THAT THE STATE IS ALSO A LITIGANT AN D NEED NOT BE GIVEN A STEP - MOTHERLY TREATMENT. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAM MOHAN KABRA (2002) 178 CTR (P&H) 273 IS RELEVANT, WHICH READS AS UNDER: THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO PRESCRIPTI ON OF LIMITATION IN EVERY STATUTE MUST NOT BE CONSTRUED SO LIBERALLY THAT IT WOULD HAVE EFFECT OF TAKING AWAY THE BENEFIT ACCRUING TO THE OTHER PARTY IN A MECHANICAL MANNER. WHERE THE LEGISLATURE SPELLS OUT A PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND PROVIDES FOR POWER TO CONDONE THE DELAY AS WELL, THEN SUCH DELAY CAN BE CONDONED ONLY FOR SUFFICIENT AND GOOD REASONS SUPPORTED BY COGENT AND PROPER EVIDENCE. NOW IT IS A SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO SPECIFIED PERIOD OF LIMITATION MUST BE APPLIED WI TH THEIR RIGOUR AND EFFECTIVE CONSEQUENCES. 4.8. IT IS TO PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE QUANTUM OF ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. WAS AGREED BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS THEREFORE, IT WAS PROPOSED T O THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE WHY 20% OF THE INCOME CLAIMED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE AR AGREED FOR 3 THE SAME. SINCE IT WAS AN AGREED ADDITION THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE THOUGHT NOT TO PREFER AN APPEAL AGAINST SUCH ADDITIONS. AFTER A GAP OF 11 MONTHS THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE CHANGED HIS MIND AND APPEAL WAS FILED BELATEDLY CITING FRIVOLOUS REASONS. 4.9. FURTHER, I ALSO RELY UPON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS. DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL REASON FOR DELAY WHETHER THE APPELLANT HAS ACTED WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE IN THE PROSECUTING OF HIS APPEAL, TO BE LOOKED INTO. BRIJ INDERS SINGH VS. KANSHI RAM (AIR 1917 - PC - 156) BARODA RAYON CORPN LTD (GUJ.) 87 STC 266 M. KR ISHNA RAO D. PHALKE VS. TRIMBAK (AIR 1938 NAG. 156) BALDEO LAL ROY VS. STATE OF BIHAR (1960) 11 STC 104 (PAT) M. LOGANATHAN VS. CIT (MAD) 302 ITR 139 CONDONATION OF DELAY PARTY HAS TO SHOW REASON FOR DELAY ON THE LAST DAY OF LIMITATION PERIOD AND THEREAF TER FOR EACH DAY THEREAFTER CONDONATION IS NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT COURT HAS TO EXERCISE THE DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION. RANKAK & ORS VS. REWA COALFIELDS LTD (AIR 1962 SC 361) JCIT VS. TRACTORS & FARM EQUIPMENTS LTD (ITAT, CHENNAI TM) (104 ITD 149 MADH U DADHA VS. ACIT (MAD) 317 458 IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION I AM OF THE OPINION THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WOULD NOT BE SERVED BY CONDONING THE INORDINATE DELAY OF 344 DAYS FOR WHICH NO COGENT REASON HAS BEEN GIVEN. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEALS IS DISMISSED. 3. EVEN BEFORE US, NO COGENT REASONS WERE FURNISHED EXPLAINING THE DELAY FOR EACH DAY FROM THE LAST DATE OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN PRESENTING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT. HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNC ED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH AUGUST, 2018 . SD/ - SD/ - (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (I NTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 14 TH AUGUST, 2018 OKK 4 COPY TO: - 1) SRINIVASA REDDY MORTHALA, 4 TH FLOOR, FORMAX HOUSE, ALLURI TRADE CENTRE, KPHB COLONY, HYDERABAD. 2) ACIT, CIRCLE - 17(1), SIGNATURE TOWERS, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT(A) - 5 , HYDERABAD 4) THE PR. CIT - 5 , HYDERABAD 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE