HIRALAL JAIN PROP. M/S KRASHI KHAD BHANDAR,BARNGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2 (2), UJJAIN

The present appeal is barred by time. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 150 days. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the application. It is stated that the filing of appeal was assigned to M/s. Ankur Goyal & Company. It is further submitted that Chartered Accountant Gaurav Pandya of Ankur Goyal & Company was looking after the appeal case of the firm, retired from the firm without giving any information of pending files, which were within his knowledge. Ld. Counsel for the [ Hiralal Jain, Barnagar] assessee submitted that the assessee has given an affidavit to this effect. Ld. Counsel further submitted that delay is not attributable to the assessee and there is a reasonable cause.

Ld. D.R. opposed these submissions and submitted that the assessee was required to explain the reason for each day’s delay but he failed to do so. Ld. D.R. further submitted that there is no reasonable cause. Assessee should have been vigilant.

I have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record. The assessee has filed an affidavit stating the reasons for non-filing of the appeal within the time prescribed. It is stated that the appeal papers and authority were duly handed over to the Chartered Accountant looking after the case. But due to negligence of the partner of M/s. Ankur Kumar Goyal, delay could not be avoided. It is contended that in the [ Hiralal Jain, Barnagar] interest of justice and fair play, delay be condoned. It is further contended that the assessee has not taken any advantage of filing the present appeal late.

On the contrary, if the delay is not condoned, the assessee would suffer gross miscarriage of justice. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Ld. Authorized representatives of the respective parties. The reliance is placed with judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.6671 to 6676 of 2010 in the case of Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) Vs. ACIT, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“Notably, the respondent(s) did not expressly refute the stand taken by the appellant (s) – that they had no knowledge about passing of order dated 29.12.2003 until June, 2008. Unless that fact was to be refuted, the question of disbelieving the stand taken by the appellant(s) on affidavit, cannot arise and for which reason, the High Couirt should have shown indulgence to the appellant(s) by condoning the delay in filing the concerned appeal(s). This aspect has been glossed over by the High Court.”

Ground Nos.1 & 2 are against reopening of the assessment. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee is an individual and a trader in purchase and sale of manure through the head office in the name of M/s.

Per contra, Ld. D.R. opposed these submissions and pointed out that no such grounds were raised before Ld. CIT(A).

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on records. From the records, it is seen that no such grounds were raised before Ld. CIT(A). I therefore, dismiss theses grounds.

Now coming to Ground No.3, it is against addition made by the A.O. on account of non-deduction of tax. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the A.O. made addition for non-deducting tax at source in respect of interest paid to Miss Varsha Jain and Smt. Leelabai Shankar Lal Jain. Ld. Counsel submitted that form 15G/15H was filed late, however, the same was duly filed before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered

Ground Nos.4 & 5 are general in nature and needs no separate adjudication.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.