Amit Agarwal , Kolkata V. DCIT, CC - VI, Kolkata , Kolkata

ITSSA 40/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4961 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-02-2020
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM BILASH MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: K M RAY
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH A KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.40/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 AMAIT AGARWAL FLAT 12B, IDEAL TOWER, BLOCK B, 57, D.H. ROAD, KOLKATA-700 023 [ PAN NO.ACSPA 4915 A ] / V/S . DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- VI, 18, RABINDRA SARANI PODDAR COURT, 5 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 001 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI K.M. RAY, AR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI RAM BILASH MEENA, CIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 18-02-2020 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21-02-2020 /O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-CENTRAL-I, KOL KATAS ORDER DATED 23.10.2013 PASSED IN CASE NO.294/CC-VI/CIT(A)C-I/11-12, INVOL VING PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE(S) PERUSED. 2. WE NOTICE AT THE OUTSET THAT THE ASSESSEES INST ANT APPEAL SUFFERS FROM 1639 DAYS DELAY IN FILING. MR. ROY INVITED OUR ATTENTIO N TO ASSESSEES CONDONATION PETITION EXPLAINING REASONS THEREOF AS FOLLOWS:- IT(SS)A NO.40/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEA R 2007-08 AMIT AGARWAL VS DC IT-CC-VI KOL. PAGE 2 THAT THE LD. C.I.T.(A), CENTRAL-I, KOLKATA PASSED AN ORDER FOR THE AY 2007-08 ON 23/01/2013 WHICH WS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 13/11/2013, 60 DAYS THEREAFTER IS 12/01/2014, SO THE DUE DATE FOR PRESE NTING THE APPEAL HAS EXPIRED MUCH BEFORE. THE APPEAL IS FILED TODAY 1639 DAYS OF DELAY. THE APPELLANT HERE IS AAMIT AGARWAL. HE IS SICK FOR THE LAST FOUR TO FIVE YEARS AND IS STILL UNDERGOING TREATMENT AND THERE WAS NO ONE ELSE TO TAKE CARE OF HIS JOB RESPONSIBILITIES. ULTIMATELY TO GO ON FURTHER W ITH APPEAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. ITAT KOLKATA HIS FAMILY9 MEMBERS DECIDED ON THE SAME. FOR THIS REASON DAYS OF DELAY RESULTED IN FILING THIS APPEAL BEFORE YOUR HONOUR. WHEN THE AO HAS PRESENTING HARD ABOUT THE OUTSTANDI NG DEMAND, I CONTRACTED WITH SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR WHO HAS APPEARED ON ASSESSME NT PROCEEDING AND ENQUIRING FOR FURTHER STEPS TO BE TAKEN IN THE MATT ER. THE SAID LAWYER IS NOT VERY CONVERSANT WITH THE TRIBUNAL MATTERS, THEREFORE, HE HAS NOT ADVISED US TO FILE APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE APPE LLATE ORDER. THEREAFTER WE CONTRACTED ANOTHER ADVOCATE SRI JAYDE EP CHAKRABORTY WHO TOOK YOUR PETITIONER TO SRI SOUMITRA CHOUDHURY, ADVOCATE ON 30.04.2018 WHO HAS ADVISED US TO FILE THE APPEAL IMMEDIATELY ALONG WIT H A DELAY CONDONATION PETITION AND HE HAS PREPARED THE APPEAL IMMEDIATELY WHICH IS FILED TODAY. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, YOUR GOODSELVES WOULD APPRECIATE THAT THREE WERE SUFFICI ENT CAUSE FOR SUCH DELAY IN PRESENTING THE APPEAL, THEREFORE, THE SAID DELAY MA Y KINDLY BE CONDONED BY OUR GOODSELVES AND TO HEAR THE APPEAL ON MERITS AS THER E WAS NOT DEFAULT ON OUR PARTS IN FILING THE APPEAL AS WE WERE NOT PROPERLY GUIDED BY THE SAID JUNIOR LAWYER. THAT BEFORE DISPOSING OF THIS PETITION A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING IS CRAVED FOR BY YOUR PETITIONER. FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS YOUR PETITIONER AS ON DUT Y BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY. 3. MR. ROY VEHEMENTLY CONTENDS THAT THE IMPUGNED DE LAY IN ASSESSEES APPEAL IS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR DELIBERATE BUT ON ACCOUNT O F HIS ILL-HEALTH DURING THE INTERVENING PERIOD OF TIME SPAN OF ALMOST FIVE YEARS. HE QUOTES HON'BLE HON'BLE HON'BLE APEX COURTS LANDMARK JUDGMENT COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) THAT ALL TECHNICAL ASPECTS MUST MAKE WAY FOR THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. WE FIND NO MERIT IN ASSESSEES INSTANT ARGUMENTS. WE NOTICE THAT THE DELAY IN QUESTION BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS WAS ON LY FOUR DAYS AS AGAINST THAT OF 1639 INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT LIS. THEIR LORDSHIPS LATEST DECISION IN ADMINISTRATIVE JAMMU IT(SS)A NO.40/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEA R 2007-08 AMIT AGARWAL VS DC IT-CC-VI KOL. PAGE 3 MUNICIPALITY & ANOTHER VS. SUARN THEATRE AND OTHERS SLP NO. 3097 OF 2018 DECIDED ON 17.01.2020 HOLDS THAT SUCH LARGE GAPS IDENTICAL TO ASSESSEES AVERMENTS IN THE ABOVE EXTRACTED CONDONATION PETITION EXPLAINING THE INORDINATE DELAY HAVE BEEN DECLINED. WE FOLLOW THE VERY REASONING HEREIN AS WE LL TO REJECT THE ASSESSEES CONDONATION PETITION. ITS MAIN APPEAL IT(SS)A 40/KOL/2018 ALSO FOLLOWS SUIT THEREFORE. 4. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21/02/2020 SD/- SD/- ( ') () ') (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) (S.S.GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *DKP-SR.PS * - 21/02/2020 / KOLKATA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-AMIT AGARWAL, FLAT 12B, IDEAL TOWER, BLO CK B 57, D.H. ROAD, KOLKATA-7 00 023 2. /RESPONDENT-DCIT,CC-VI, 18, RABINDRA SARANI PODDAR COURT,5 TH FL. KOL-001 3. - . / CONCERNED CIT 4. . - / CIT (A) 5. / ))- , - /DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 3 / GUARD FILE. BY ORD ER/ , /TRUE COPY/ -,