BHIKUBHAI M. PATEL, V. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1),

ITSSA 23/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9105 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S RANA
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Search and seizure; Bonafide belief; Block assessment; Condonation of delay; Ignorance of law
• Section: 69C; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, B, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S V MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NO. 23/MUM/2009 (BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1.4.1989 TO 8.7.1999) BHIKUMBHAI PATEL BLDG NO.10A,A-701/702, OSWAL WADI, ANJUR PATHA BHAWANDI PAN: AAWPP3656M .APPELLANT VS DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KALYAN RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI DHARMESH SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S S RANA O R D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO,JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 28.11.2008 OF CIT(A)-I, THANE FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1.4.1989 TO 8.7.1999. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS I N THIS APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL U/S 249(3) OF THE A CT WITHOUT ADMITTING THE SAME; IT(SS)A NO. 23/MUM/2009 (BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1989 TO 8.7.1999) 2 2. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONDONED THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND ADMITTED THE APPEAL TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS; 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED LBY THE AO U/S 158BC R.W. 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS BAD IN LAW AND INVALID. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO ARE INVALID AND VOID AB-INITIO. THE CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENTS ORDER IS THEREFORE ILLEGAL AND NULL AN D VOID; 5. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AT RS.1,96,65,615/- 6. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.9,41,67/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE OF PROFIT OF THE APPELLANT FROM KATAI PROJECT WAS INCORRECT. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THA T THE APPELLANT HAD INCURRED LOSS AMOUNTING TO RAS.1918/- FROM THE SAID PROJECT. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.36,55,000/ - IS INCORRECT AND UNJUSTIFIED; 8. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.1,22,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN LAND ADJACENT TO MANGAL BHAVAN IS INCORRECT AND UNJUSTIFIED; 9. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE AO HAS INCORRECTLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.85,07,400/- ON ACCOUNT UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE LAND FOR MAHAVIR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX; 10. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,66,800/- ON ACCOUN T OF RENT FROM OLD MANGAL BHAVAN AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD; 11. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE AO WAS INCORRECT IN HOLDING THAT AMOUNT OF IT(SS)A NO. 23/MUM/2009 (BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1989 TO 8.7.1999) 3 RS.75,000/- WAS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED EXPENDITURE ON FOREIGN TOUR; 12. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.4,95,581/- WAS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION FROM THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT; 13. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE COST OF BISHI AMOUNTING TO RS.3,87,982/- WAS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION FROM THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT; 14. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO GRANT TH E INTEREST COT AMOUNTING TO RS.4,95,581/- WHICH IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION FROM THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF HE APPELLANT; 15. THE L.D CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.9,18,000 /- ADDED ON ACCOUNT OF VALUE OF TWO GALAS IN KATAI PROJECT IS NOT UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 16. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.8,68,390/- ALLEGEDLY BY THE ASO AS ASSESSEES SHARE IN THE SHOPS SOLD IN KATAI PROJECT BY MR. FARAZI DO NOT CONSTITUTE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT 17. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED PAYMENTS MADE TO MR. SETHIYA AMOUNTING TO RS.3,79,098/- 18. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.13,48,400/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED AND UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN POWER LOOMS IS INCORRECT AND UNJUSTIFIED; 19. THE. LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,83,360/- ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S 69C OF THE ACT WAS INCORRECT AND INVALID UNDER THE LAW; IT(SS)A NO. 23/MUM/2009 (BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1989 TO 8.7.1999) 4 20. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT NO SURCHARGE CAN BE LEVIED ON THE TAX PAYABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE; 21. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE PENALTY INITIATED U/S 140A R.W.S.221(1) AND 158-BH OF THE ACT IS INVALID AND UNJUSTIFIED; 22. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S 158BFA(1) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.6,56,315/- I S INVALID AND UNJUSTIFIED; 23. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE PENALTY INITIATED U/S 158BFA (2) OF THE ACT IS INVALID AND UNJUSTIFIED; 24. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE OF YOUR HONOUR TO ADD TO, ALTER, AMEND AND/OR DELETE ALL OR ANY OF TH E FOREGOING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 3. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN VARIOUS GR OUNDS, BUT THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPE AL IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL U/S 249(3) WITHOUT ADMITTING THE SAME AND ALSO THE CIT( A) FAILED TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN ADMITTING THE APPEAL. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE LEADING TO THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION AT THE RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 8.7.1999. TH E ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE BLOCK P ERIOD 1.4.1989 TO 8.7.1999 ON 29.12.2000 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD AT RS.57,07,104/-. DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD, THE AS SESSEE IT(SS)A NO. 23/MUM/2009 (BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1989 TO 8.7.1999) 5 FILED A REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME ON 16.6.2001 DECLARING HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS.1,05,914/-. THE AO P ASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W. SECTION 158BC ON 3 1.7.2001 AND COMPUTED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,96,65,615/-. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 5. BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETURN O F INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1989 TO 8.7.1999 IN THE FORM NO. 2B ON 29.12.2000 DISCLOSING UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS.57,0 7,104/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID TAX OF RS.25,000/- ONLY ON 22.12.2000 ON THE RETURNED UNDISCLOSED INCOME TILL THE DATE OF FILING THE FIRST APPEAL. THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY APP LYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(4)(A) DID NOT ADMIT THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE SECO ND APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 27.4.2006 PASSED IN I T(SS)A NO.628/MUM/2002 HAVE HELD THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF ADMITTING AN APPEAL U/S 249(4)(A), THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WOR KED OUT AT RS.1,05,914/- IN THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED BEFORE THE AO AS AGAINST THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.57,07,104/- DISCLOSED IN THE BLOCK RETURN SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER DIRECTED THAT T HE CIT(A) SHOULD TREAT THE APPEAL TO HAVE BEEN FILED ON THE D AY WHEN THE IT(SS)A NO. 23/MUM/2009 (BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1989 TO 8.7.1999) 6 ADMITTED TAX LIABILITY ON THE BASIS OF REVISED COMP UTATION OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PAID. THE TR IBUNAL FURTHER DIRECTED THAT THE CIT(A) TO CONSIDER THE CO NDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IF HE IS SATISFIED WITH THE SUFFICIENCY OF REASONS. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, THE TRIBUNAL R ESTORED THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH AD JUDICATION ON THE ISSUE. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE CONTEN DED THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS REPLY DATED 7.9.2007 H AS EXPLAINED THE DELAY. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS EMERGED FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE TAX OF RS.63,431/- ON THE AMOUNT OF INCOME ADMITTED BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE DETAILS OF TAXES PAID ARE AS UNDER : DATE RS. 22.12.2000 25,000 23.03.2004 25,000 24.01.2005 1,30,000 IT(SS)A NO. 23/MUM/2009 (BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1989 TO 8.7.1999) 7 THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 3 YEARS AND 5 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY OCCURRED IN PA YMENT OF TAX AND CONSEQUENT DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS O N THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNAWARE OF THE FACT TH AT THAT HE HAS TO PAY THE ADMITTED TAX BEFORE FILING THE APPEA L. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT BY INVOKING THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 249(4) OF THE ACT, THE CIT(A) DID NOT ADM IT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS FILED BY THE ASSES SEES REPRESENTATIVE SHRI NARESH DATTRANI, TAX CONSULTAN T. AT THE TIME OF FILING OF THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE NEVER AD VISED TO PAY THE ENTIRE TAX ON THE UNDISPUTED INCOME. HE SU BMITTED THAT IN FACT SUCH PROVISION WAS ITSELF NOT WITHIN T HE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SAID REPRESENTATIVE. IF THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BEEN DIRECTED PROPERLY ON THIS SUBJECT, HE WOULD HAVE NO T COMMITTED SUCH TYPE OF MISTAKE AND HE WOULD HAVE TAKEN APPROP RIATE STEPS TO PAY THE TAX AND ENSURE THE ADMISSION OF TH E APPEAL. 8. THE LEARNED AR HAS PLEADED THAT DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS DUE TO LACK OF LEGAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE AS SESSEES AND IMPROPER LEGAL ADVISE BY THE EARLIER CONSULTANT S, SHRI NARESH DATTANI. THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO DELAY T HE APPELLATE IT(SS)A NO. 23/MUM/2009 (BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1989 TO 8.7.1999) 8 PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE BONAFIDE BELIEF. HE URGED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY HIS REPRESENTATIVE. IN SUPPOR T OF THIS SUBMISSIONS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AFFIDAVIT DATED 19.9.2006. 9. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PAY THE TAX DUE ON THE ADMITTED RETURNED INCOME, HE STARTED MAK ING THE ARRANGEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF TAX. HE SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS FINANCIALLY IN A VERY BAD SHAPE AND HA D NO FUNDS TO PAY THE TAX. THE PROJECTS STARTED BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED MISERABLY RESULTING INTO LOSES FROM THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. DUE TO THIS THE ASSESSEE HAS CLOSED HIS CONSTRUCTION WORK AND STARTED NEW WORK. . THE LEARNED AR SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO HAD TO BORROW NEW FUNDS AND HAD T O MANAGE FOR MAKING THE PAYMENTS FOR THE OLD LOANS WH ICH WERE TAKEN FOR OLD BUSINESS. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE RATE OF INTEREST WERE VERY HIGH WHEN HE BROUGHT THE LOANS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, THE LEARNED AR RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: I) SHAHRUKH KHAN V/S DCIT (2007) 13 SOT 61 (MUM) II) J K CHATURVEDI V/S ACIT (2004) 82 TTJ (AHD) 2 84 III) SHAMRAJ MOORJANI V/S DCIT (2005) 93 TTJ (HYD) 927 IV) N BALAKRISHNAN V/S M KRISHNAMURTHY (1998) 7 S SC 123 IT(SS)A NO. 23/MUM/2009 (BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1989 TO 8.7.1999) 9 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AVAILING THE SERVICES OF PROFESSION AL EXPERT ON THE SUBJECT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE T HE PLEA OF IGNORANCE OF LAW; EVEN OTHERWISE, THE IGNORANCE OF LAW CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A DEFENCE. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSI NESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND WAS CARRYING OUT VARIOUS BIG PROJE CTS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS A RENOWNED BUILDER OF B HIWANDI AND HAS COMPLETED MANY BUILDING PROJECTS. FROM THE FACTS AND BACKGROUND OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BEL IEVE THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PAY SMALL AMOUNT OF TAX DUE TO FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES. THE LEARNED DR HAS POINTE D OUT THAT VIDE LETTER DATED 16.6.2001 THE ASSESSEE HAS STATE D THAT HE IS A PARTNER IN VARIOUS PROJECTS AS THE DETAILS OF SAM E ARE MENTIONED IN THE SAID LETTER. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A PARTNER IN THE FIRM M/S MANGAL ENTER PRISES WHICH HAD CARRIED OUT VARIOUS PROJECTS. THE FINANC IAL CONDITION OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE EXPECTED AS SO BAD THAT HE COULD NOT ARRANGE A SMALL AMOUNT OF DUE TAXES. HE HAS RE LIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AS WEL L AS THE RELEVANT RECORD. AS REGARDS THE FIRST CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF ADMITTED TAX LIABILITY. WE NOTE THAT THE FIRST APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED ON 27.9.2002 BY THE CIT(A) FOR NON IT(SS)A NO. 23/MUM/2009 (BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1989 TO 8.7.1999) 10 PAYMENT OF ADMITTED TAX. THEREFORE, AFTER 27.9.20 02, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE A PLEA OF IGNORANCE OF LAW OR NOT ADVISED BY HIS LEGAL AND TAX CONSULTANT TO PAY THE TAX. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT EVEN AFTER 27.9.2002, THE ASSESSE E DID NOT TAKE IMMEDIATE STEPS FOR PAYMENT OF THE ADMITTED TA X LIABILITY AND HAS PAID THE SAME FINALLY ON 24.1.2005. THEREF ORE, THE FIRST CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTE D ATLEAST FOR THE DELAY IN PAYMENT OF ADMITTED TAX FROM 27.9. 2002 TILL 24.1.2005. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED A NY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT HE WA S NO ADVISED BY THE LEGAL AND TAX CONSULTANT TO PAY THE ADMITTED TAX BEFORE FILING THE APPEAL. IF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLEGI NG A LACUNA ON THE PART OF HIS REPRESENTATIVE AND CONSULTANT THEN IT SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY A SUFFICIENT MATERIAL OR ATLEAST THE A FFIDAVIT OF THE CONSULTANT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS RESPECT. BUT NO SUCH MATERIAL HAS BEEN FILED. 12. AS REGARDS THE SECOND CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A FINANCIAL POSITION TO MAK E THE ARRANGEMENT OF FUNDS FOR PAYMENT OF ADMITTED TAX. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINES S OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND CARRIED OUT VARIOUS CONST RUCTION PROJECTS. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED DR, THE AS SESSEE IS ALSO A PARTNER IN VARIOUS FIRMS WHICH UNDERTOOK THE VARIOUS PROJECTS AS MENTIONED IN THE LETTER DATED 16.6.2001 . IT(SS)A NO. 23/MUM/2009 (BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1989 TO 8.7.1999) 11 THEREFORE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND ALSO CONTINUING THE VARIOUS PROJEC TS THEN IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ACCEPT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PAY THE ADMITTED TAX DUE TO BAD FI NANCIAL CONDITION PARTICULARLY, WHEN THE TAX AMOUNT TO BE P AID BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY RS.63,548/-. EVEN IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED AS WHAT STEPS HAS TAKEN FOR MAKING THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE FUNDS AND H OW FINALLY THE ASSESSEE ARRANGED THE FUNDS WHEN TAX WAS PAID. 13. NO DOUBT THAT COURT SHOULD TAKE A LENIENT VIEW AND APPROACH WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY AND TECHNICALITIES SHOULD NOT COME IN THE WAY OF SUBSTA NTIAL JUSTICE. HOWEVER, THE BASIC REQUIREMENT OF SUFFICI ENT CAUSE CANNOT BE UNDERMINED. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE INORDINATE DELAY OF THREE YEARS AND FIV E MONTHS IN PAYMENT OF ADMITTED TAX AND CONSEQUENTLY IN FILING THE APPEAL, THEN THE PRINCIPLE OF LIBERAL APPROACH AND SUBSTANT IAL JUSTICE CANNOT COME TO RESCUE OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE A SSESSEE IS BEING REPRESENTED BY A QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL IN THE TAX MATTER BEFORE THE VARIOUS AUTHORITIES, THEN IT IS BEYOND IMAGINATION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ADVISED PRO PERLY IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF THE ADMITTED TAX. THE EXPL ANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS EVIDENT FROM THE AFFIDAVIT IS VERY VAGUE AND NOTHING HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AS TO WHAT STEPS THE ASS ESSEE HAS IT(SS)A NO. 23/MUM/2009 (BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1989 TO 8.7.1999) 12 TAKEN AFTER THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSE D BY THE CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 27.9.2002. FROM THE TOTALI TY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS FRO M THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SERIOUS AND SINCERE ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TA X AND THEREBY THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE CAUS E SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUFFICIENT OR EVEN A GOOD CAUS E. ACCORDINGLY, THE REASONS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT SATISFACTORY AND REASONABLE FOR CONDONATION OF SUCH INORDINATE DELAY. WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN PAYMENT OF ADMITTED TAX AND CONSEQUENTLY THE FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, IN OUR VIEW, ARE NOT RELEVANT AND APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE INLIMINE. SINCE WE HAVE NOT ADMITTED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON LIMITATION, WE DO NOT PROPOSE TO GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.06.2010 SD SD (S V MEHROTRA ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) IT(SS)A NO. 23/MUM/2009 (BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1989 TO 8.7.1999) 13 ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 24 TH JUNE 2010 SRL:4510 COPY TO: 1. BHIKUMBHAI PATEL BLDG NO.10A,A-701/702, OSWAL WADI, ANJUR PATHA BHAWANDI 2.DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KALYAN 3. CIT-II, THANE 4. CIT(A)-I, THANE 5. DR B BENCH BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI