SHRI BHUPENDRAKUMAR JIVANLAL SHAH,KADI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, KADI

The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar (‘CIT(A)’ in short), dated 10.03.2016 arising in the assessment order dated 17.09.2014 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2011-12.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under:

When the matter was called for hearing, the learned AR for the assessee was confronted with the facts that the appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 373 days. The explanation for delay was sought from the assessee in terms of Section 253(5) of the Act. The learned AR pleaded for condonation of delay but without showing any justifiable cause whatsoever.

The learned DR, on the other hand, pointed out that apart from the belated filing of appeal, the assessee has also shown total negligence and non-cooperation before the AO. All the notice before the AO remained unattended and the assessment order was passed ex parte. The learned DR further pointed out that even before the CIT(A), the non-cooperation from the representative of the assessee continued. Repeated non-attendance is glaring from the record. The learned DR accordingly contended that the delay cannot be condoned simply on the grounds of sympathy or merely out of benevolence to the parties seeking relief. The learned DR thus submitted that no interference in the order of the CIT(A) is called for. [Bhupendrakumar J. Shah vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 3 - 5. We have carefully considered the rival submission. We have also perused the affidavit dated 19th May, 2017 placed on record but find no sufficient cause for acceding to the request for condonation of delay. Needless to say, the litigant also expected to perform his duty diligently and with commitment. The condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit. The burden is on the assessee to justify sufficient ground for condonation of delay. We have not been apprised of existence of any valid ground to enable us to condone such inordinate delay. Coupled with this, we note that the assessee is an habitual defaulter and has no care to attend to the statutory proceedings either before the AO or before the CIT(A) as called for. In view of the alarming show of negligence at all stages, we are not inclined to view the case of the assessee favourably. The appeal of the assessee is thus dismissed at threshold owing to bar of limitation.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.