Ashok Pannalal Jain, Beed V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 3, Aurangabad

ITA 669/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9087 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-08-2022
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . आयकर अपीलसं. / ITA No.669/PUN/2018 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashok Pannalal Jain, Mondha, Parli Vaijnath, Parli, Beed. PAN: ABGPJ 9316 H Vs The CIT(A), Circle-3. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Shri S.P.Walimbe – DR Date of hearing 10/08/2022 Date of pronouncement 02/11/2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, dated 02.05.2017for the A.Y. 2014-15 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(in short “the Act”).. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The assessee had filed his IT return by showing the taxable income of Rs.1,06,20,326/- as Business & Other income as on 31.03.2016. 2. The case is selected for the scrutiny assessment u/s 143 under CASS and notice properly served to the assessee. The scrutiny assessment completed after making addition which was null and void. 3. H'ble Sir, the Learned A.O attracted section 2(47) along with Section 56(2)(vii) and added the inadequate value of consideration. 4. Further, The income to be considered is not real income arising from transactions in normal course of business, it is a notional income. ITA No.669/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 Ashok Pannalal Jain (A) 2 5. The learned A.O. did not considered the plead of assessee that the agricultural land is not an urban land and hence not covered U/s 2(14). 6. So, it is humble request to consider the same and provide opportunity to prove the allowable claim.” Appeal was called twice, none appeared for the assessee. 2. It is observed that this appeal was fixed on following dates: 11.08.2021, 27.09.2021, 11.11.2021, 28.01.2022, 04.07.2022 & 10.08.2022. 2.1 Thus, on six occasions, none appeared for the assessee. It is observed that appeal was filed beyond time. The ld.CIT(A)’s order was received by the assessee on 12.06.2017, therefore, as per section 253(3) appeal should have been filed within sixty days. Thus, appeal should have been filed on or after 12.08.2017. However, the appeal has been filed on 11.04.2018, thus, there is a delay of almost 8 months. The assessee filed application for condonation of delay. The assessee gave following reasons in the condonation application. “With reference to aforementioned subject for the submission of appeal; there is delay in filing an appeal for the respective case. The assessee is an Individual, having source of income from business. There is delay in filing of appeal because the A.R. of the assessee was busy with newly introduced GST Act and its compliances. Further as it was July period, Income Tax returns for non-audit cases had to be filled before 5 th August. Due to this, there was delay in analyzing the whole case and also resulted in delay to find out relevant case laws. Your honor, there is no mens reapresent in this case.” ITA No.669/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 Ashok Pannalal Jain (A) 3 3. On perusal of the reasons, it is observed that assessee has merely stated that the ld.Authorised Representative of the assessee was busy in various compliances. 3.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by Lrs. v/s Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project in Civil Appeal No’s.6414-6417 of 2008, has observed as under : Quote, “The question is : Can the respondent/applicant in this case take advantage of its negligence, after lapse of number of years, of the decision of Government? It knew the exact grounds on which appeals could have been preferred. The law will presume that it knew of its right to file appeal against the award. Everybody is presumed to know law. It was its duty to prefer appeals before the court for consideration which it did not. There is no explanation forthcoming in this regard. The evidence on record suggest neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and `do not slumber over their rights.' The question for consideration is whether the averments disclosed any sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 1724 days in filing the appeals. 15. In Ajit Singh Thakur Singh and anr. vs. State of Gujarat [(1981) 1 SCC 495 ] this court observed : "It is true that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an appeal. But when it allows limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that because of some event or circumstance arising before limitation expired it was not possible ITA No.669/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 Ashok Pannalal Jain (A) 4 to file the appeal within time. No event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can constitute sufficient cause." (Emphasis supplied) This judgment squarely applies to the facts in hand. 17. The respondent beneficiary of the acquisition did not initiate any steps whatsoever before expiry of limitation and no circumstances are placed before the court that steps were taken to file appeals but it was not possible to file the appeals within time................ 22. Basically the laws of Limitation are founded on public policy. In Halsbury's Laws of England,4th Ed., Vol.28,p.266,para 605, the policy of the Limitation Acts is laid down as follows: "The courts have expressed at least three different reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitation, namely,(i) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them, (ii) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to dispute the stated claim, (iii) that persons with good causes of actions should pursue them with reasonable diligence."..... It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a life span for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy. ” Unquote. 4. In the case under consideration, the reasons given by the assessee are not sufficient; the Assessee has merely stated that the Ld.AR was busy in GST compliance. The busy schedule of the Ld.AR cannot be the sufficient reason for not filling the appeal in ITA No.669/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 Ashok Pannalal Jain (A) 5 time. The Ld.AR cannot be busy for entire 60 days and then subsequent 8 months that he didn’t get time to file the appeal. This shows that the reason is not sufficient to explain the inordinate delay. In this case it is negligence of the assessee and dilatory tactics. Negligence can be inferred from the fact that no one has attended hearing even after giving so many opportunities. Therefore, the delay is not condoned as there is no sufficient cause for delay. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not admitted. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not admitted. Order pronounced in the open Court on 2 nd November, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S.GODARA) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 2 nd Nov, 2022/ SGR* आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.