Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2024] 138 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8665 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 month(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
13-12-2024
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
SMC
Assessment Year
2010-2011
Appeal Filed On
12-09-2024
Judgement Text
"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj \nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR \n \n Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k \n BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM \n \n vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1162 & 1163/JP/2024 \n fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year :2010-11 \n \nSmt. Santra \nW/o Satybir, \nVillage \nBanbirpur, Tijara, Alwar \n \n \nv. \nITO, \nWard-Bhiwadi, \nAlwar \nLFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ETZPS 5155 J \nvihykFkhZ@Appellant \n \nizR;FkhZ@Respondent \n \n fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA \n jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr. DR \n \n \n \n \n \nlquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing \n \n: 11/12/2024 \n \n mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 13/12/2024 \n \n \nvkns'k@ORDER \n \n \nPER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER. \n \nAssessee has challenged before us two separate orders dated \n19.06.2024 passed by ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (in short \n‘the Act’) whereby two separate appeals filed by the assessee, relating to \nthe Assessment Year 2010-11, have been dismissed while upholding the \norder passed by the Assessing Officer after conducting quantum \n\n2 \n \n ITA Nos. 1162 & 1163/JP/2024 \n Smt. Santra \n \nproceedings, and also the other order vide which the Assessing Officer \nlevied penalty of Rs. 39,861/-. \n2. \nArguments heard. File perused \n3. \nIt may be mentioned here that both the appeals before us came to be \nfiled after delay of about 25 days. In order to seek condonation of delay, an \napplication was filed in each appeal, initially under the signatures of Sh. P. \nC. Parwal, ld. AR of the assessee. However, when it was pointed out that \nno application under the signatures of the assessee was filed, on \n9.12.2014, afresh, but joint and not separate application has been \npresented before the Registry seeking condonation of delay in respect of \nboth the appeals. The application is accompanied by her affidavit. \n4. \nLd. AR for the assessee-appellant has submitted that the assessee \ncould not file appeals within the prescribed period of limitation as she \ngained knowledge from her CA, Sh. Anshul Rohtagi about passing of \npenalty order, on 2.8.2024, whereupon she contacted CA Sh. Kavinder \nSingh, Bhiwadi for filing of appeals, and after discussions present appeals \ncame to be presented on 17.09.2024. Accordingly, Ld. AR has urged that \ndelay in filing of these two appeals before this Appellate Tribunal may be \ncondoned. \n\n3 \n \n ITA Nos. 1162 & 1163/JP/2024 \n Smt. Santra \n \n5. \nIn support of the common application seeking condonation of delay, \nan affidavit of the applicant has been filed. \n6. \nA perusal of Forms No. 35 reveals that in respect of the assessment \norder and penalty order, same were submitted by CA, Anshul Rohtagi, \nwhose e-mail ID is available in column 17 thereof. Both the appeals were \nsubmitted by way of Forms No.35 on 03.12.2018. \n7. \nThe affidavit furnished by the applicant is in consonance with the \naverments put forth in the joint application. Keeping in view all the facts and \ncircumstances, delay of 25 days in filing of these two appeals is condoned. \nOn dismissal of appeals by Ld. CIT(A) in limine \n8. \nAs requested, we have heard the appeals today itself. \nComing to the challenge made to the impugned order passed by \nLearned CIT(A), as regards impugned penalty order, it was observed that \nthere was delay of 135 days. \nLd. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation, while \nobserving that the assessee was provided sufficient time and adequate \nnumber of opportunities of being heard and to file application seeking \ncondonation/ affidavit and supporting evidence to explain the delay, but in \nvain. Ultimately, Learned CIT(A) held that the reason furnished in the \nmemorandum of appeal itself that for late filing of appeal was due to \n\n4 \n \n ITA Nos. 1162 & 1163/JP/2024 \n Smt. Santra \n \nnegligence of consultant/Advocate, in absence of any tangible material and \nbona fides, could not be considered to be a sufficient cause, and rather, \ndelay occurred on account of sheer negligence and inaction on the part of \nthe assessee. \n9. \nAs is available from the impugned order, the matter remained \npending before Ld. CIT(A) from 21.06.2018 to 3.12.2018 i.e. for about 6 \nmonths , but the assessee failed to furnish any affidavit and documentary \nevidence as regards prayer for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. \nITA No.1164/24 \n10. \nComing to the challenge made to the impugned order passed by \nLearned CIT(A), as regards impugned order pertaining to quantum \nassessment, it was observed that there was delay of 317 days. \nLd. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation while \nobserving that the assessee was provided sufficient time and adequate \nnumber of opportunities of being heard and to file application seeking \ncondonation/ affidavit and supporting evidence to explain the delay, but in \nvain. Ultimately, Learned CIT(A) held that the reason furnished in the \nmemorandum of appeal itself that for late filing of appeal was on account of \nnegligence of consultant/Advocate, in absence of any tangible material and \n\n5 \n \n ITA Nos. 1162 & 1163/JP/2024 \n Smt. Santra \n \nbona fides, could not be considered to be a sufficient cause, and rather, \ndelay occurred on account of sheer negligence and inaction on the part of \nthe assessee. \nDiscussion \n11. \nLet’s see what ground was put forth by the appellant in column No.14 \nof Form No.35 submitted before CIT(A) while seeking condonation of delay, \nin filing each appeal. \n12. \nAs is available from the impugned order, the matter remained \npending before Ld. CIT(A) from 21.12.2017 to 3.12.2018 i.e. for about one \nyear, as regards challenge to penalty order but the assessee failed to \nfurnish any affidavit and documentary evidence as regards prayer for \ncondonation of delay in filing of the appeal. \nAs per averments put forth in said column, the appellant claimed \nherself to be an illiterate house wife, and pleaded that when she received \nshow cause notice in respect of proceedings under section 271(1)(c), she \ndelivered the said notice to her consultant, but, he kept the same with \nhimself and did not submit any response thereto. \n\n6 \n \n ITA Nos. 1162 & 1163/JP/2024 \n Smt. Santra \n \nFurther according to her, when she was conveyed information about \nthe penalty order dated 21.6.2018, her consultant did not file appeal before \nCIT(A). \nAs regards the delay in filing of appeal challenging quantum \nassessment, in the relevant column No.14 of Form No.35, the appellant \nclaimed to have received the assessment order, and then handed over the \nsame to her Advocate with relevant papers under the impression that the \nappeal would be filed in time, but he did not file appeal in time. She claims \nto have gained knowledge about the quantum assessment on receipt of \npenalty order under section 271(1)(c). \n13. \nSignificant to note that Ld. CIT(A) granted many opportunities to the \nassessee to furnish affidavit and material as regards prayer for condonation \nof delay in filing of each appeal, but she did not furnish any affidavit and \ndocument in support of the claim regarding condonation of delay. \n14. \nIn the given situation, when the appeals came to be dismissed in \nlimine due to abovesaid reason i.e. failure on the part of the assessee to \nfurnish affidavit and document to prove that there was sufficient cause for \nnon filing of the appeals within the prescribed period of limitation, in these \ntwo appeals before this Appellate Tribunal, it was for the assessee-\n\n7 \n \n ITA Nos. 1162 & 1163/JP/2024 \n Smt. Santra \n \nappellant to explain as to why she did not avail of the opportunities granted \nto her by Ld. CIT(A) to file affidavit and documents in order to prove \nsufficient cause, but, she has not put forth any explanation in this regard \ni.e. to explain failure on her part to file affidavit and documents before \nLearned CIT(A). \n15. \nLearned AR for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is an \nilliterate house-wife and that she having delivered the impugned orders to \nher consultant, it was for the consultant to do the needful, but he having \nfailed to take steps, delay in filing of the appeal(s) before CIT(A) be \ncondoned and matter be remanded for decision of the appeals on merits. \n16. \nOrder regarding quantum assessment is dated 15.12.2017. It came to \nbe challenged before Ld. CIT(A) on 3.12.2018. \n \nPenalty order is dated 21.6.2018. It also came to be challenged \nbefore Ld. CIT(A) on the aforesaid date i.e. 3.12.2018. \n \nIn other words, both the appeals came to be presented on 3.12.2018 \nby same Consultant Sh. Anshul Rohtagi. \n\n8 \n \n ITA Nos. 1162 & 1163/JP/2024 \n Smt. Santra \n \n17. \nIt may be mentioned here that the appellant has testified in the single \naffidavit, referred to above, even about the facts which led to delay in filing \nof appeal before Ld. CIT(A). \nWe have already gone through said affidavit and discussed above as \nregards condonation of delay in filing of appeals before this Appellate \nTribunal. \nAs regards delay in filing of appeals before Ld. CIT(A), we could have \nremanded the matter for adjudication of said issue after providing an \nopportunity to the assessee to file the affidavit desired from her, besides \nother documents, if any, but, keeping in view that the matters pertain to the \nAssessment Year 2010-11, we have considered the submissions made \nbefore us. \n18. \nAs per the abovesaid affidavit, the assessee claims ignorance about \nthe passing of the quantum assessment order and that she gained \nknowledge about said order only in November, 2018 i.e. about 11 months \nthereafter, when she was apprised of the penalty order dated 21.6.2018. In \nother words, she claims ignorance even about the passing of penalty order \nand having gained knowledge about the said order in after 5 months i.e. in \nNovember, 2018. \n\n9 \n \n ITA Nos. 1162 & 1163/JP/2024 \n Smt. Santra \n \nIn the affidavit, the appellant has testified that passing of the penalty \norder came to her knowledge in the month of November, 2018. But, she \nhas not specifically testified that the penalty order was brought to her \nknowledge by her CA Sh. Anshul Rohtagi. She should have specified in the \naffidavit as to how she came to know of the penalty order. \nThe fact remains that impliedly the appellant is attributing \ncarelessness on the part of her CA in not having informed her about \npassing of the quantum assessment proceedings in time. A perusal of the \nquantum assessment order would reveal that Shri Abhinav Kumar Gupta, \nCA was representing the appellant in the quantum assessment \nproceedings. \nAs to who represented the assessee in the penalty proceedings, \nperusal of the penalty order reveals that none appeared on behalf of the \nassessee, despite opportunity and notice, and the Assessing Officer had to \nproceed ex parte. Assessee has not placed on record any material to \nsuggest as to who was authorized by her to represent her in the penalty \nproceedings. \n\n10 \n \n ITA Nos. 1162 & 1163/JP/2024 \n Smt. Santra \n \nAll the above details on significant aspects should have been \nprovided while filing the appeals before Ld. CIT(A) and before this \nAppellate Tribunal. \nIt is well settled that the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of own \nrights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the proceedings initiated \nor to be initiated at her instance. The litigant must remain in constant touch \nwith the authorized representative. Therefore, the litigant cannot be \npermitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the consultant or \nAdvocate and disown himself or herself at any time to seek relief for \ncondonation of delay. \nHaving regard to all the facts and circumstances, and in the interest \nof justice, especially, when the assessee is an illiterate housewife, we \ndeem it a fit case to condone delay in filing of the two appeals before Ld. \nCIT(A), but subject to costs, as she herself was also not diligent. We order \naccordingly. \n19. \nIn the given situation, both the appeals are disposed of for statistical \npurposes, and matter are remitted to Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeals on \nmerits, of course, after providing opportunity of being heard to the \nappellant. \n\n11 \n \n ITA Nos. 1162 & 1163/JP/2024 \n Smt. Santra \n \n20. \nIn view of the observations already made above, the assessee-\nappellant is burdened with costs of Rs.3,000/-i.e. Rs.2,000/-as regards \ncondonation of delay in the appeal pertaining to quantum proceedings and \nRs.1,000/-as regards condonation of delay in the appeal pertaining to \npenalty order. \n21. \nAppellant to deposit the costs in Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund \nand produce the receipt before Ld. CIT(A) before the proceedings are \ncommenced on remand. \n22. \nCopy of this common order be placed in the record of the other \nappeal file for record. \n23. \nAppeal files be consigned to the record room after the needful is done \nby the office. \nAnnounced in open court on 13/12/2024 \n \n \n \n \n Sd/- Sd/- \n ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ \n \n \n \n ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ \n \n (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) \n \n (NARINDER KUMAR) \n ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member \n \nTk;iqj@Jaipur \n \nfnukad@Dated:- 13/12/2024 \n*Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS \nvkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: \n1. \nThe Appellant- Smt. Santra, Alwar \n2. \nizR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-Bhiwadi, Alwar \n\n12 \n \n ITA Nos. 1162 & 1163/JP/2024 \n Smt. Santra \n \n3. \nvk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT \n4. \nvk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) \n5. \nfoHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur \n6. \nxkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA Nos. 1162 & 1163/JP/2024) \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar \n"
Mehul