KUMAR SUMAN SINGH, PATNA V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, PATNA

ITA 651/PAT/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7777 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 year(s) 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARCHANA SINHA SR S C
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Condonation of delay
• Section: 6; 263; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, PATNA BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY (AM) & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JM) ITA NO S . 6 5 0,651,652 & 653 /PAT/20 07 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 20 0 1 - 02 TO 2004 - 05 KUMAR SUMAN SINGH , VS. DCIT, F/62, P. C. COLONY , CENTRA L CIRCLE - 2, KANKARBAGH, PATNA. PATNA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN - AAECA0928L DEPARTMENT BY : S MT. ARCHANA SINHA , SR. S.C., ASSESSEE BY : NONE . DATE OF HEARING: - 05 /10 /201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T: - 06 TH / 10 /201 7 ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ALL FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX - CENTRAL, PATNA . 2. TODAY THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BUT NO NE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF REPEATED CALLS AND EVEN NO ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED. WE HAVE FURTHR NOTICE D FROM THE RECORD THAT ON EARLIER OCCASION ALSO NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE APPEALS WERE DISMISS ED INLIMINE BUT LATER ON THE SAME WERE RESTORED BY A MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. NOW AGAIN NOBODY HAS BEEN APEARED BEFORE 2 I TA NO S . - 650,651,652 & 652 / PAT /20 07 US ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR PRESENT IN THE COURT, IS READY FOR ARGUMENT. IN SUCH CIRCUMST ANCES, WE HAVE DECIDED TO PROCEED THE ASSESSEE EX - PARTE AND DECIDE THE APPEAL S AFTER HEARING LD. DR AND CONSIDERING THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORDS. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, WE NOTICED THAT THE PRESENT APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPLICATION FOR SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY U/S 249(3) OF THE ACT. WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR O N THIS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID APPLICATION S AND NOTICE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT F ILED ANY AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION FOR SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY . 4. FURTHER W E NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT FOR CON DONING THE DELAY ON THE GROUND THAT HE WAS LANGUISHING BEHIND THE BAR S SINCE 2003 AND ON ACCOUNT OF THIS REASON, H E COULD NOT FILE THE APPEALS WITHIN LIMITATION . I N OUR CONSIDERED VIEW , THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUSTAINBLE AS THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE ORDER U/S263 W ERE SERVED UPON HIM ON 12.05.2007 WITHIN TIME WHILE HE WAS IN CUSTODY . T HE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT TIME TO FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN LIMITATION. MORE PARTICULARLY , WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS CONTESTING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LD. CIT U/S. 263 OF I. T. ACT AND THEREFORE, HE COULD HAVE ALSO FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE ITAT . APART FROM ABOVE THE HAS NOWHEWRE MENTIONED AS TO WHEN HE GOT RELEASED 3 I TA NO S . - 650,651,652 & 652 / PAT /20 07 FRM THE JAIL. THE PROCEDURE FOR FILING APPEAL BY A PERSON CONFINED IN JAIL HAS ALREADY MENTIONED IN THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. IN CASE THE ASSESSEE WAS INTERESTED TO FILE AND APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT U/S. 263 THEN THE SAME COULD HAVE BEEN FILED BY ADOPTING DUE PROCEDURE. 5. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO CONDONE THE DEALY OF 170 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL . IT IS SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT DELAY CAN BE C ONDONED NOT THE LATCHES . SINCE NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY THEREFORE, TAKING INTO CONS IDERATION THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, W E DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSSSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN ALL THE APPEALS. 5 . I N THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A RE DISMISSED ON THIS GROUND ALONE . O RDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06 TH OCTOBER , 201 7 . SD/ - SD/ - ( J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ) ( SANDEEP GOSAIN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE OF ORDER: 06 TH OCT OBER , 201 7 . S . S INH A (PS) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT . 2. THE RESPONDENT.: 3. THE CIT(A) - PATNA 4. CIT , PATNA 4 I TA NO S . - 650,651,652 & 652 / PAT /20 07 5. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,PATNA 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER PRIVATE SECRETARY DATE OF DICTATION - ........ DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER OTHER MEMBER ......... DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./P.S. - .. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS P LACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER .. DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER