Centre for Individual & Corporate Action, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 883/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90508 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 21-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 20-04-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHE NNAI , . ! ! ! ! , ' ' ' ' #$ #$ #$ #$ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NOS.880, 881, 882, 883, 884 & 885/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS :1995-96, 96-97, 97-98, 98-99, 1999-2000 & 2000-01 CENTRE FOR INDIVIDUAL AND CORPORATE ACTION (CICA), T-73, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 040. [PAN:AADPN2553J] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS CIRCLE-XIII, CHENNAI. ( %& %& %& %& /APPELLANT ) ( '(%& '(%& '(%& '(%& / RESPONDENT ) %& ) * / APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. MEENAKSHISUNDHARAM, ITP '(%& ) * / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT ) + / DATE OF HEARING : 21.05.2015 ,-. ) + /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.06.2015 / / / / / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : IN PURSUANCE TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN T.C.(A) NO. 283 TO 288 OF 2014 DATED 23.09.2014, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NOS. 880 TO 885/MDS/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995- 96 TO 2000-2001 VIDE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 23.07 .2012 HAS BEEN SET ASIDE AND REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE THE APPEALS RELATING TO CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPE ALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .880 880880 880- -- -885 885885 885/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 2 2. THE SIX APPEALS FILED BY THE SAME ASSESSEE IS D IRECTED AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) XII, CHENNAI DATED 29.08.2006 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT Y EARS 1995-96, 1996- 97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 AND 2000-01. THE AP PEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN FILED WITH A DELAY OF 2053 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT FOR CON DONATION OF DELAY AND THE CONTENTS ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER: THIS SOLEMN AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED ON THIS DAY THE 14 TH DAY OF APRIL 2012 AT CHENNAI BY DR. GEORGE NILANKAVIL S/O LATE L.V. N EELANKAVIL AGED 69 YEARS AND RESIDING AT T-73, ANNA NAGAR CHENANI-600 040 IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE MANAGING PARTNER OF M/S. CENTRE FOR INDIVIDUAL AND CORPORATE ACTION A FIRM COMPRISED OF HIMSELF AND TH REE OTHERS WITNESSETH, THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) XII C HENNAI PASSED AN ORDER DT 29/8/2006 IN THE CASE OF M/S.CICA UPHOLDIN G THE DENIAL OF THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 40(B) BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN AN ORDER GIVING TO EFFECT TO AN EARLIER ORDER OF THE APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL. THAT THE MANAGING PARTNER WAS AGITATING THE MATTER BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES AT DIFFERENT LEVELS FOR THIS RELIEF AND MANY MORE RELIEFS IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM AS WELL AS IN THE HANDS OF HIS OWN INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT THAT THE INDIVIDUAL PARTNER WAS UNYIELDING AND WAS CEASELESSLY PERSUING THE MATTER WITH THE ADMINISTRATION COMMISS IONER THAT THE ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER REPLIED ONLY V ERY LATE AFTER A LAPSE OF FIVE YEARS AND SEVEN MONTHS BY HIS LETTER DT 10/2/1012 TO THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE MANAGING PARTNER THAT IN THE MEANTIME THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING AN A PPEAL BEFORE THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL HAD ELAPSED RESULTING IN A DELA Y OF 2054 DAYS, THAT THE DELAY HAD BEEN CAUSED BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PROSECUTING AN ALTERNATE REMEDY BEFORE THE DEPA RTMENTAL I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .880 880880 880- -- -885 885885 885/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 3 AUTHORITIES AND THE ASSESSEE COULD GET A FINAL REPL Y UPON HIS PETITIONS ONLY AS LATE AS 10/2/2012, THAT THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THERE IS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HONORABLE TRIBUNAL AND THAT THE DELAY HAD BEEN CAUSED BY REASONS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF TH E APPELLANT, AND THAT THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL BE PLEASED TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 2054 DAYS NOTICED IN FILING THE APPEAL IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLAINED. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PURSUING HIS REMEDIES BEFORE THE INCOM E TAX DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE, THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS MAY KINDLY BE CONDONED. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CHENNAI X, CHENNAI DATED 10.02.2012 REJECTED ASSESSEES REPRES ENTATION AND THEREFORE, IMMEDIATELY APPROACHED THE TRIBUNAL AND PRAYED THAT THE DELAY MAY BE CONDONED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED AN ORDER DATED 29.08.2006 AND THE ASSESSEE H AS MADE A REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE LD. CIT-X IN 2011. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY BETWEEN THE PERIODS FROM 29.08 .2006 TO 2011, THERE IS NO REASON TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND SUBMITTED THAT T HE DELAY OF 2053 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEALS SHOULD NOT BE CONDONED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THIS CA SE, THERE IS A DELAY OF 2053 I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .880 880880 880- -- -885 885885 885/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 4 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995-96 TO 2000-2001. THE REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS AFFIDAVIT T HAT HE WAS PURSUING HIS REMEDY BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. HE HAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER HAS REPLIED ONLY AFTER LAPSE OF FIVE YEARS AND SEVEN MONTHS BY LETTER DATED 10.02.2012. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO DELAY. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE CONSOLIDATE D ORDER DATED 29.08.2006 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS APPROACHED THE ADMINISTRATIVE CIT X IN 2011 AS PER THE LETTER OF LD. CIT DATED 10.02.2012. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THIS CASE VIDE ORDER DATED 23.09.2014, WHEN THE BENCH HAS ASKED THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE ASSES SEE AND THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 29.08.2006 TO 10 .02.2012, HE IS NOT ABLE TO SUBMIT ANY DETAILS OR EXPLAIN ANYTHING IN RESPEC T OF THE ABOVE PERIOD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY RELIED ON THE LETTER OF ADMINISTRATIVE CIT DATED 10.02.2012. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) H AS PASSED THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2006 AND THE REPRESENTATION ADDRESSED T O THE ADMINISTRATIVE CIT IS DATED 10.10.2011. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKE D SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE PERIOD, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AB LE TO FILE ANY MATERIAL BEFORE US TO SHOW THAT HE IS BEING PURSUING REMEDIE S BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. EVEN, HE HAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN WHAT ARE THE EFFORTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE ABOVE PERI OD. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE F IND THAT THE ASSESSEE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .880 880880 880- -- -885 885885 885/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 5 HAS FAILED TO SHOW SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR FILING THE APPEALS WITH LONG DELAY BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THUS, THE DELAY CONDONATION P RAYED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED AND HOLD THAT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE AND ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS ALL THE AP PEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 19 TH OF JUNE, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 19.06.2015 VM/- / ) ''+01 21.+ /COPY TO: 1. %& / APPELLANT, 2. '(%& / RESPONDENT, 3. 3 ( ) /CIT(A), 4. 3 /CIT, 5. 14 ''+' /DR & 6. 5! 6 /GF.