SHRI DHALU MAL DHAMAN DAS, AJMER V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), GHAZIABAD

ITA 79/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9757 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C GUPTA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay; TDS
• Section: 234E; 200A

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,A JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 78 &79 /JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 (F.Y.2012-13Q. 4 TH ) 2014-15 (13-14 Q. 4 TH ) SHRI DHALU MAL DHAMAN DAS 19, KEM BUILDING, PARAO, AJMER-30500. CUKE VS. THE ACIT, CPC (TDS), GAZIABAD. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAJFD 1176 H VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : NONE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI K.C. GUPTA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 29/06/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/06/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BENCH: THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGA INST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A), AJMER BOTH DATED 11. 05.2017 FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2012-13 Q. 4 TH AND 2013-14 Q. 4 TH ARISING FROM INTIMATION BY THE AO ON 23.12.2013 AND 19.09.32014 RESPECTIVEL Y U/S 200A OF THE ACT WHEREBY THE AO MADE ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF LA TE FILING FEES U/S 234E OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 78 & 79/JP/2019 DHALU MAL DHAMAN DAS VS. ACIT (TDS) 2 2. THE HEARING OF THESE APPEALS WAS CONCLUDED THROU GH VIDEO CONFERENCE IN VIEW OF THE PREVAILING SITUATION OF C OVID-19 PANDEMIC. NON HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED LETTER DATED 08.05.32019 WHICH IS ON RECORD W HEREBY THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED TO DISPOSE OFF THESE APPEALS ON THE BASIS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THERE IS ABOUT 18 MONTHS DELAY IN FILI NG OF THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WHICH READS AS UNDER:- WE ARE HEREBY SUBMITTING FORM 36 IN DUPLICATE ALON G WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 TOWARDS APPEA L IN ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR BUT DUE TO MEDICAL PROBLEMS DU E TO WHICH THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED IN TIME AND IT IS THU S REQUESTED TO KINDLY CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE ABOVE APPEAL AND OBLIGE. APART FROM THIS APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELA Y NEITHER ANY SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT NOR ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE H AS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DR HAS VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THESE APPEALS AND SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS A HABITUAL DEFAULTS IN SUBMITTING TDS STATEMENT AS WE LL AS FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HE HAS FURTHER POINTE D OUT THAT EVEN THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WERE DISMISSED DUE TO ABNORMAL DELAY. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CLEARLY POINTED OUT THAT THERE I S AN ORDINATE DELAY IN ITA NO. 78 & 79/JP/2019 DHALU MAL DHAMAN DAS VS. ACIT (TDS) 3 FILING THESE APPEALS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN REASONABLE CAUSE OR EXPLANATION. THUS, THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSE SSEE DO NOT DESERVES ANY LENIENT VIEW. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESS EE IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WHEREIN THE AS SESSEE HAS MADE A VAGUE STATEMENT THAT DUE TO MEDICAL PROBLEMS THE AP PEAL COULD NOT BE FILED IN TIME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER EX PLAINED WHAT MEDICAL PROBLEMS BE SUFFERED FROM NOR ANY SUPPORTIN G DOCUMENT IS FILED. EVEN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDINATION OF DELA Y IS NOT SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT. FURTHER, IT IS MANIFEST FROM THE RECO RD THAT THERE IS INORDINATE DELAY EVEN IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A). THE INTIMATION HAS ISSUED ON 23.12.2013 WHICH WAS CHALL ENGED BY THE ASSESSEE BY FILING THE APPEAL ON 29.02.2016 WHICH S HOWS THAT THERE IS MORE THAN TWO YEARS DELAY. EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED ANY CAUSE OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPE AL. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS NOT MAINTAI N SUCH BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. THESE FACTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE AS SESSEE IS NOT TAKING TAX MATTER SERIOUSLY. FURTHER, THERE IS INORDINATE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WHICH HAS NOT BEEN EXP LAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ONLY ONE LINE VAGUE REASONS ARE GI VEN DUE TO MEDICAL ITA NO. 78 & 79/JP/2019 DHALU MAL DHAMAN DAS VS. ACIT (TDS) 4 PROBLEM THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED IN TIME. THE REFORE, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS LACKING THE BONAFIDE REASON OR CAUSE. THE ASSESSEE IS MERELY GIVING AN EXCUSE WITHOUT ANY SUP PORTING FACTS OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND THEREFORE, THE VAGUE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE CA NNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A REASONABLE AND BONAFIDE CAUSE FOR INORDINATE D ELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THOUGH IT IS SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW WHE NEVER SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE OPPOSED TO EACH OTHER CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE HAS TO BE PREFERRED HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT LITIGANT GETS FREE LICENCE TO APPROACH THE COURT AT ITS WILL. IN THE CASE IN HAND DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSES SEE WERE DISMISSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DUE TO INORDINATE DELAY THE ASSES SEE HAS AGAIN APPROACH THIS TRIBUNAL AFTER ABOUT 20 MONTHS FROM T HE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND HENCE, THERE IS A DELAY OF 1 8 MONTHS. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN INORDINATE DELAY I N FILING THE APPEAL IS REQUIRED TO BE EXPLAINED WITH REASONABLE CAUSE TO T HE SATISFACTION OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT INSP IRE THE CONFIDENCE AND HENCE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS GROSSLY FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE REASONABLE CAUSE IN F ILING THE APPEAL BELATEDLY. ACCORDINGLY, WE DECLINE TO CONDONE THE D ELAY OF ABOUT 18 ITA NO. 78 & 79/JP/2019 DHALU MAL DHAMAN DAS VS. ACIT (TDS) 5 MONTHS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED BEING BARRED BY LIMIT ATION. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/06/2020. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 30/06/2020. * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI DHALU MAL DHAMAN DAS, AJMER. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ACIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD (U.P.). 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 78 & 79/JP/2019} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR