Shree Modh Mahajan, RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 662/RJT/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1913 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 11 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 31-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANJEET SINGH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH E COURT AT AHMEDABAD] BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.662/RJT/2012 / ASSTT. YEAR: - SHREE MODH MAHAJAN SHRI RAMJI MANDIR MANIBHAI CHOWK SAVARKUNDLA VS THE CIT - III RAJKOT. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : WRITTEN SUBMISSION REVENUE BY : SHRI RANJEET SINGH, CIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 16/11/2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10/12/2019 $%/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST O RDER OF LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, RAJKOT DATED 26. 3.2012 VIDE WHICH APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATI ON/RECOGNISATION UNDER SECTION 80G(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS REJE CTED. 2. REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT THAT APPEAL IS TIME BAR RED BY 216 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR CONDONAT ION OF DELAY. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING, AS WELL AS IN RESPONSE TO TH E OBJECTION POINTED BY THE REGISTRY, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS HAS BEEN FILED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AND HE PLEADED FOLLOWING FACTS FOR CONDON ATION OF DELAY: 7 PRAYER FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ITA NO.662 /RJT/2012 2 7.1. WITHOUT ANY INTENTION AND ANOTHER BONAFIDE BEL IEF THAT THE TAX PRACTITIONER IS DOING WELL THE MATTER WAS LOST SIDE NOT ONLY THIS ON MERITS OF THE CASE THE ISSUE INVOLVE ARE FULLY ALLO WABLE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT TAKING INTO CO NSIDERATION THE FOLLOWING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE CONDONED. 7.2.1 THE HON. GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS BEEN PLEASE T O HOLD REGARDING CONDONATION OF DELAY AS UNDER : THE HON. GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS SPECIFICALLY HOLD T O CONSIDER MERITS OF THE CASE AND HAS ISSUED GUIDELINES THAT NO MERIT IOUS CASE SHOULD SUFFER BECAUSE OF DELAY AND SUCH DELAY SHOULD BE CO NSIDERED LIBERALLY. THUS, MERITS IN MY CASE NEED CONSIDERATION BY CONDO NING THE DELAY AS PER GUIDELINES / CONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION OF T HE HON. GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN FOLLOWING CASES: 1. 54 TAXMAN 33 (GUJ) - VARELY TAXTILE INDUSTRY V/S . CIT ONE OF THE PROPOSITION OF SETTLED LEGAL POSITION IS TO ENSURE THAT MERITORIOUS CASE IS NOT THROWN ON THE GROUND OF LIM ITATION. 2. 115ITR27 (GUJ) - SAURASHTRA CEMENT & CHEMICAL I NDUSTRY V/S. CIT THE HON. GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS BEEN KIND ENOUGH TO HOLD THAT NO MERITORIOUS CASE SHOULD SUFFER ON THE GROUND OF LIM ITATION AND THE DELAY TO BE CONDONED TAKING VARY LIBERAL VIEW. 7.2.2 THUS THE HON. GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS BEEN PLE ASE TO ISSUE GUIDELINES THAT MERITS OF THE CASE MUST BE CONSIDER ED AND IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE MERITS ARE SOUND THAN NO MERITORIOUS CASE SHOULD SUFFER ON THE GROUND OF LIMITATION AND THE DELAY TO BE CONDONED T AKING VARY LIBERAL VIEW. 7.2.3 THUS THE HON. JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS B EEN PLEASE TO ISSUE THE GUIDELINES THAT THE MERITS OF THE CASE NEEDS CO NSIDERATION. AND IN CASE THERE IS A CASE ON MERITS THE DELAY MAY BE CON DONED LIBERAL VIEW ACCEPTING THE NO MERITORIOUS CASE SHOULD SUFFER ON THE GROUND OF LIMITATION AND THE DELAY TO BE CONDONED TAKING VARY LIBERAL VIEW. 7.4. IT IS THEREFORE EARNESTLY PRAYED THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE CONDONED AS A MATTER OF GRACE AND OBLIGE. ITA NO.662 /RJT/2012 3 3. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE WOULD INDICATE THAT NO CI RCUMSTANCES HAVE BEEN HIGHLIGHTED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS TO WHY IT COULD NOT FILE APPEAL WITHIN THE TIME. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN HIS SUBMISSIONS HAS JUST NARRATED CERTAIN CASE LAWS, BUT IT IS THE REASON WHICH IS REQUIRED T O BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, PROHIBITING TO FILE APPEAL WITHIN THE TIM E. THERE IS NO AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ANY EXPLANATION FROM THE TRUSTEES. THE BRIEF PLEADING IN PARA 7.1 OF THE SUBMISSION DOES NOT DISCLOSE ANY REASON, AS TO WHY APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED WITHIN TIME. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY PL AUSIBLE EXPLANATION AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEE TO CONDONE THE DELAY. ACCORDIN GLY, REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS REJECTED. CONSEQUENTLY, AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED BEING TIME BARRED. 4. IN THE RESULTS, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 10 TH DECEMBER, 2019 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( WASEEM AHMED ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER