Shri Ramesh Verma, Mumbai V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-6(3), Surat

MA 42/SRT/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6340 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUPAMA SINGLA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM MA NO.42/SRT/2019 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.826/AHD/2012] ASSESSMENT YEAR: (2010-11) (VIRTUAL COURT HEARING) SHRI RAMESH VERMA, PROP. OF M/S. KUSH INTERNATIONAL, 626, PANCHRANTNA, OPERA HOUSE, MUMBAI-400 004. VS. THE ITO, WARD-6(3), SURAT. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO.: ABCPV7139G (REVENUE) (ASSESSEE) ASSESSEE BY : PRAKASH D. SHAH, AR REVENUE BY : MS ANUPAMA SINGLA, SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 02/09/2021 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07/09/2021 / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: BY WAY OF CAPTIONED APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT TO POINT OUT THAT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) HAS CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30.08.2018. 2. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLEADS THAT TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES CASE DID NOT CONDONE THE DELAY. THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL AND THEREFORE DELAY WAS REQUIRED TO BE CONDONED, HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONDONED THE DELAY DESPITE OF HAVING REASONABLE CAUSE TO CONDONE THE DELAY, THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.826/AHD/2012/SRT FOR AY.2010-11 DATED 30.08.2018 MAY BE RECALLED. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (LD. DR) FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, THEREFORE TRIBUNAL DID NOT CONDONE THE DELAY, SO ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT BE RECALLED. PAGE | 2 MA NO.42/SRT/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR.2010-11 RAMESH VERMA 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE NOTE THAT THERE IS A VERY LONG DELAY OF 2027 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEAL, (MORE THAN 6 YEARS) AND TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE ORDER AFTER CONSIDERING ASSESSEES SUBMISSION. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE DELAY SUCCESSFULLY; THEREFORE THIS TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONDONED THE DELAY. THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE GIVEN BELOW: 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT THE COURTS ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES AND ARE EMPOWERED TO CONDONE THE DELAY IF THE LITIGANT SATISFIES THE COURT THAT THERE WERE SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR THE AVAILING THE REMEDY AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE LIMITATION. SUCH A REASONING SHOULD BE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT. THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE OR REASON AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION(5) OF SECTION 253, SUB-SECTION(3) OF SECTION 249 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IS USED IN IDENTICAL TERMS IN THE LIMITATION ACT AND THE CPC. SUCH EXPRESSION HAS ALSO BEEN USED IN UNDER SECTION 273B OF THE ACT, 1961. THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 5 OF LIMITATION ACT AS WELL AS A SIMILAR OTHER PROVISIONS AND THE AMBIT OF EXERCISE OF POWERS THEREUNDER HAVE BEEN SUBJECT MATTER OF CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE HONOURABLE APEX COURT ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS. IN THE CASE OF THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. ADMINISTRATOR, HOWRAH MUNICIPALITY, AIR 1972 SC 749, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, WHILE CONSIDERING THE SCOPE OF THE EXPRESSION OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, HAS HELD THAT THE SAID EXPRESSION SHOULD RECEIVE A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION SO AS TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WHEN NO NEGLIGENCE OR INACTION OR WANT OF BONAFIDE IS IMPUTABLE TO THE PARTY. IN EVERY CASE OF DELAY, THERE MIGHT BE SOME OMISSIONS/NEGLIGENCE HAS TO BE WEIGHED IN THE LIGHT OF EXIST CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE FACTS AND JUDGEMENTS, IF WE EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER APPEAL WAS RECEIVED BY HIS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, THE THEN HIS CA. HOWEVER, THE APPEAL WAS NOT FILED BY SAID CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT I.E. SHRI SURENDRA MEHTA. IT WAS THE DUTY CAST ON THE ASSESSEE TO LOOK AFTER HIS AFFAIRS AND VIGILANT ALSO FOR INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM. THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THERE IS NEGLIGENCE OF HIS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THERE WAS NEGLIGENCE AS WELL AS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT A CASE THAT HIS COUNSEL HAD ADVISED HIM NOT TO FILE AN APPEAL. THUS, THERE IS NEGLIGENCE OF COMMISSION IS A BYPRODUCT OF A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT WITH MALA-FIDE INTENTION FOR DELAY THE PROCESS OF THE LITIGATION WHICH COULD GIVE SOME BENEFIT TO THE LITIGANT, THEN PROBABLY PROCESS OF LITIGATION WHICH WOULD VIEW SOME BENEFIT WITH THE LITIGANT THEN PROBABLY THAT DELAY WOULD NOT DESERVED TO BE CONDONED. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING APPEAL WITHIN TIME ALLOWED BY STATUTE. THEREFORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO CONDONE THE VERY LONG DELAY OF 2027 DAYS IN FILING OF APPEAL. HENCE, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF FILING IN DELAY. THEREFORE, REGULAR GROUND OR ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE NOT TO BE ADJUDICATED. PAGE | 3 MA NO.42/SRT/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR.2010-11 RAMESH VERMA AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, WE NOTE THAT THERE IS NO ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, HENCE WE DISMISS THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE (IN MA NO. 42/SRT/2019 FOR AY.2010-11) IS DISMISSED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/09/2021 BY PLACING THE RESULT ON THE NOTICE BOARD AS PER RULE 34(5) OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULE 1963. SD/- SD/- (PAWAN SINGH) (DR. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER LWJR /SURAT / DATE:07/08/2021 ** SAMANTA** COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. PR.CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, SURAT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/SR. PS/PS ITAT, SURAT