Shri G.Saravanan, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITSSA 3/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9444 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 25-09-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIRUDH RAI
• Assessee Lawyers: A S SRIRAMAN
• Keywords: Block assessment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.(SS) A. NO. 02/MDS/2013 (BLOCK PERIOD : 1991-92 TO 2000-01 & 1.4.2000 TO 6.12.2000) SMT. G. VANITHA, OLD NO.4 / NEW NO.7, RAMACHANDRA ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 017. PAN : AAHPV 3819 M (APPELLANT) V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II(1), CHENNAI - 600 034. (RESPONDENT) I.T.(SS) A. NO. 03/MDS/2013 (BLOCK PERIOD : 1991-92 TO 2000-01 & 1.4.2000 TO 6.12.2000) SHRI G. SARAVANAN, OLD NO.4 / NEW NO.7, RAMACHANDRA ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 017. PAN : ABGPS 8826 B (APPELLANT) V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II(1), CHENNAI - 600 034. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANTS BY : SHRI A.S. SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANIRUDH RAI, CIT DATE OF HEARING : 25.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.09.2013 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES, DIRECTED AGAINST ORDERS DATED 24.1.2013 OF COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX I.T.(SS) A. NO. 02/MDS/13 I.T.(SS) A. NO. 03/MDS/13 2 (APPEALS)-I, CHENNAI. BOTH APPEALS ARE ON PENALTIE S LEVIED UNDER SECTION 158BFA OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'T HE ACT'). ASSESSEES ARE MOTHER AND SON RESPECTIVELY. 2. THOUGH THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES ADV. SHRI S. SRIDHAR HAS FILED A PETITION FOR ADJOURNMENT, NO REASONABLE GRO UNDS HAVE BEEN SHOWN BY HIM FOR SEEKING SUCH ADJOURNMENT. THE APP EALS WERE ORIGINALLY POSTED ON 23.4.2013 AND LATER ON 26.6.20 13 AND ADJOURNED TO 23.9.2013. IN ALL SUCH INSTANCES, ADJOURNMENTS WERE SOUGHT BY ASSESSEES COUNSEL. WE ARE, THEREFORE, NOT INCLINE D TO GIVE ADJOURNMENT. THE ADJOURNMENT SOUGHT IS, THEREFORE, REJECTED. 3. THOUGH ASSESSEES HAVE TAKEN ELEVEN GROUNDS IN TH EIR APPEALS, THEIR MAIN GRIEVANCE IS THAT CIT(APPEALS) DISMISSED THEIR APPEALS ON THE ISSUE OF LIMITATION. THE PENALTY ORDERS WERE R ECEIVED BY BOTH THE ASSESSEES ON 28.1.2005. APPEALS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEES BEFORE CIT(APPEALS) ONLY ON 11.11.2010. ASSESSEES HAD SOUGHT CONDONATION FOR THE DELAY STATING THAT THE PENALTY ORDERS WERE HANDED OVER TO THEIR CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT IMMEDIATELY ON T HE RECEIPT OF THE ORDERS ON 28.1.2005. NEVERTHELESS, THE PLEADING BE FORE THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS THAT ASSESSEES BECAME AWARE OF NON -FILING OF APPEALS ONLY WHEN THERE WAS A MEETING WITH CHARTERE D ACCOUNTANT IN I.T.(SS) A. NO. 02/MDS/13 I.T.(SS) A. NO. 03/MDS/13 3 OCTOBER, 2010. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION V. KATIJI (167 ITR 471). NEVERTHELESS, CIT(APPEALS) WAS NOT IMPRESSED . ACCORDING TO HIM, THERE WAS NO PROPER REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESS EE FOR THE HUGE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS. HE, THEREFORE, DISMIS SED THE APPEALS. 4. NOW BEFORE US, ADV. A.S. SRIRAMAN, APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEES, SUBMITTED THAT THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT TO WHOM ASSESSEE HAD ENTRUSTED THE PENALTY ORDERS, HAD MISP LACED THEM. THE DELAY WAS CAUSED DUE TO MISPLACEMENT OF THE ORD ERS BY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSEES COULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR THE ERROR COMMITTED BY THEIR CHARTERE D ACCOUNTANT. SINCE IT CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF ASSESSEES IN OCTO BER, 2010 THAT APPEALS WERE NOT FILED, STEPS WERE TAKEN TO FILE SU CH APPEALS AND APPEALS WERE FILED BEFORE CIT(APPEALS) ON 11.11.201 0. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE DELAY HAVING NOT BEEN CAUSED BY ANY NEGLIGENCE OF THE ASSESSEES, IT HAD TO BE CONDONED. LD. CIT(APPEALS) FELL IN ERROR IN NOT CONDONING THE DEL AY AND DISMISSING THE APPEALS IN LIMINE. 5. PER CONTRA, SHRI ANIRUDH RAI, APPEARING FOR REVE NUE, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS). I.T.(SS) A. NO. 02/MDS/13 I.T.(SS) A. NO. 03/MDS/13 4 6. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THOUGH THE ASSESSEES ARE STATING THAT PENALTY ORDER S WERE ENTRUSTED TO THEIR CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT ON 28.1.2005 AND CHAR TERED ACCOUNTANT CONCERNED HAD MISPLACED THEM RESULTING I N HUGE DELAY OF MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, NO AFFIDAVIT FROM CONCERNED C HARTERED ACCOUNTANT HAS BEEN FILED IN SUPPORT. THERE IS NOT EVEN A LETTER FROM THE CONCERNED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT ADMITTING THE MI SPLACEMENT OF THE PENALTY ORDERS. THUS, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECO RD THAT THE DELAY WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. IN THE C ASE OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES, THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 158BFA WAS LEV IED SUBSEQUENT TO A BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT. THE BLOCK ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED O N 30.7.2004. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY NOTICES DATED 30.7.2004 ITSELF. THIS BEING THE CASE, TO BELIEVE THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEES THAT THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THEIR PART, NOR ANY NEGLIGE NCE ON THEIR PART IN FILING THE APPEALS, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. LD. CIT(AP PEALS) WAS, IN OUR OPINION, JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY. ASS ESSEES WERE NOT ABLE TO SHOW ANY GROUND FOR THE DELAY. NO DOUBT, I N MATTERS OF DELAY, A TECHNICAL VIEW CANNOT BE TAKEN AND A LIBERAL APPR OACH HAS TO BE THERE. HOWEVER, LIBERAL APPROACH CANNOT BE EXTEN DED TO MEAN THAT I.T.(SS) A. NO. 02/MDS/13 I.T.(SS) A. NO. 03/MDS/13 5 ANY AMOUNT OF DELAY AND NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF A SSESSEES SHOULD BE CONDONED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FLIMSINESS OF THE R EASON GIVEN. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORD ER OF CIT(APPEALS). 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES AR E DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON MONDAY, THE 30 TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2013, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (S.S. GODARA) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013. KRI. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A)-I, CHENNAI (4) CIT, CENTRAL-II, CHENNAI (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE