M/s Patiala Flour Mills Company Ltd., Patiala V. ACIT, Patiala

ITA 916/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86136 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: VIBHOO GARG
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 916/CHD/2014 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) PATIALA FLOUR MILLS COMPANY LTD., VS. THE A.C.I.T., PATIALA. CIRCLE PATIALA. PAN: AAACT6370P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIBHOO GARG RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 21.01.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.01.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S), PATIALA DATED 30.9.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 , CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL HOLDING IT TO BE TIME BARRED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) NOTED THAT THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC TION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE NOTICE OF DEMAND WAS SE RVED ON 30.3.2011, WHEREAS THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED ON 20. 10.2012. THUS THERE WAS A DELAY OF APPROXIMATELY 19 MONTHS I N FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE LEARNED C IT 2 (APPEALS) THAT THE PENALTY ORDER WAS PASSED ON 17.3 .2011 AND WAS RECEIVED ON 31.3.2011 BY LATE SHRI NARAYAN DUTT WHO WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY POSTED AT REGIS TERED OFFICE AND HE DID NOT INFORM THE COMPANY ABOUT THI S. LATER ON THE ORDER WAS FOUND AT THE OLD REGISTERED OFFICE AND THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) TO CON DONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM. THE LEARNE D CIT (APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED REPLY A T THE PENALTY STAGE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 9.2.2 011. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE ORDER WOULD BE PASSED VERY SOON. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSE E SHOULD NOT HAVE WAITED FOR 19 LONG MONTHS TO KNOW ABOUT T HE FATE OF THE PENALTY ORDER. THUS THE DELAY IN FILING THE A PPEAL WAS NOT CONDONED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DIS MISSED. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (AP PEALS) IS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE BRIEF LY EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS STOPPED ITS MANUFACTU RING ACTIVITIES IN PATIALA AND HAS SOLD ITS ASSETS. NO W THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY HAVING A REGISTERED OFFICE WHERE ONE SHRI NARAYAN DUTT, CLERK WAS POSTED IN PATIALA AND HE HA S RECEIVED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 30.3.2011 BUT DID NOT FORWARDED THE SAME TO THE CORPORATE OFFICE IN DELHI FROM WHERE THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES ARE CARRIED ON. SHRI NARA YAN DUTT EXPIRED ON 5.9.2011 AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO MOVED FOR SHIFTING 3 OF THE REGISTERED OFFICE FROM PATIALA TO DELHI AND AFTER RECEIVING THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE APPEAL WAS FILED. 4. CONSIDERING THESE AVERMENTS CONTAINED IN THE APP LICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (AP PEALS), WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR CONDONING THE DEL AY IN THE MATTER. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING IT TO BE TIME BARRED. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT ITS MANUFACTURI NG ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN STOPPED IN PATIALA. HOWEVER, IT WAS ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING REGISTERED OF FICE IN PATIALA WHERE SHRI NARAYAN DUTT, CLERK WAS POSTED. IT IS ALSO ADMITTED THAT THE PENALTY ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY SHR I NARAYAN DUTT, CLERK ON 30.3.2011. THE ASSESSEE STATED THA T THE OFFICE IS SHIFTED AT DELHI AND THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASS ESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE OF FICE IS SHIFTED FROM PATIALA TO DELHI, THEREFORE, THE IMPUG NED ORDER COULD NOT BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. WH EN THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN SAME ADDRESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVICE O F PATIALA IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS/APPEAL PAPERS BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) , WHERE IS THE INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPE ALS). THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE WAS ALSO CONFRONTED WI TH THE SAME ADDRESS OF PATIALA AS GIVEN IN THE APPEAL PAPE RS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS, THEREFORE, CONSISTENT STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY A T PATIALA IS THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSES SEE NEVER INTIMATED THE SHIFTING OF THE OFFICE FROM PATIALA T O DELHI TO THE 4 REVENUE DEPARTMENT OR IN ANY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS TO THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE , THE STORY OF SHIFTING OF THE OFFICE FROM PATIALA TO DELHI IS WHO LLY CONCOCTED AND IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THERE IS ABNORMAL DELAY OF ABOUT 19 MONTHS IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR ASSESSEE ALSO COULD NOT EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ASSES SEE REMAINED SILENT IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) AFTER THE DEATH OF SHRI NARAYAN DUTT ON 5 .9.2011 BECAUSE THE APPEAL IS FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ON 20.10.2012. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER FOR EXPLAINING THE DELAY IN FILING THE A PPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE IS EXPLAINED IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) BELATEDLY. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE TIME BARRED. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE HOLDING THE SAME TO BE TIME BARRED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 23 RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 23 RD JANUARY, 2015 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5