Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD
आदेश/O R D E R
PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM:
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.
[Bhupendrakumar J. Shah vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 -
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under:
“1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground of appeal challenging the validity of assessment order passed u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act by passing an ex-parte order without granting proper and adequate opportunity of hearing considering the fact that the appellant is residing outside Ahmedabad. That apart, the Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant was an aged man of 74 years and was not remaining in good health and hence could not compile the details required to be filed in the given time either before the AO or the CIT(A). The appellant humbly states that the appeal be set-aside to the file of the Id. CIT(A) for decision afresh in the interest of natural justice and equity.
2. The appellant states that in view of above facts as conveyed by the A.R. to the ld. CIT(A) coupled with the fact that the A.R. himself was out of town on the last given date of hearing he could not either appear before the CIT(A) or file an adjournment application, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have granted one more opportunity in the interest of justice and equity.
3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the various additions made by the AO aggregating to Rs.89,26,732/- being income from long term capital gain amounting to Rs.87,83,960/- and income from other sources amounting to Rs. 1,42,772/- without granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant to defend his case. The appellant thus humbly states that the appeal be set-aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh in the interest of natural justice and equity.”
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.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 29/07/2019
Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 29/07/2019 True Copy S. K. SINHA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।