Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC
Before: SH. SANJAY ARORA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 434/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13
Aqua Traders, vs. Income Tax Officer, Madina Chowk, Ward 3(1), Raj Bagh, Gowkadal, Srinagar Srinagar, Kashmir [PAN: AAPFA 2953B] (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Sh. Bashir Ahmed Lone (C.A.) Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 11.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 29.04.2019
ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jammu ('CIT(A)' for short) dated 29.3.2016, partly allowing the assessee’s appeal contesting its’ assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) dated 13.02.2015 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.
At the outset, it was observed by the Bench that the appeal is time-barred by 344 days; the appeal having been, as against the due date of 19.07.2016 – in-as- much as the impugned order was communicated, as stated in Form 36, on 20.5.2016), filed on 17.10.2017. The condonation application dated 12.6.2017 accompanying the appeal memo explains the delay as on account of, firstly, curfew
2 ITA No. 434/Asr/2017 (AY 2012-13) Aqua Traders v. ITO and strike in the valley. Further, that Sh. Shakeel Ahmad Matta, partner, who looks after the tax and financial affairs of the assessee-firm was fully engaged with his aunt, hospitalized at New Delhi, accompanying her till May, 2017. Impliedly, only thereafter he could attend to his work and, consequently, file the appeal.
I have heard the parties, and given a careful consideration to the matter. The assessee’s condonation is not maintainable for more than one reason. To begin with, the application itself, which is not accompanied by an affidavit, as it ought to be, is not valid in law as it is not by the concerned partner or even any other partner of the assessee-firm, but by Sh. Bashir Ahmad Lone, the assessee’s counsel. No part of the delay is, it may be clarified, attributable to the counsel. The condonation application is in fact even otherwise without any merit. The last date for filing the return in a case where the accounts are audited, as in the instant case, is 30th day of September of the following year, i.e., 30.09.2016, for assessment year (AY) 2016-17. In case of dislocation of public life for any reason, as for example the floods of 2014 inundating Srinagar, the period for filing returns is usually extended, as was up to 30.11.2014 for AY 2014-15 by CBDT. There is no stated extension for AY 2016-17. The return for this year would stand to be furnished during the months of April to September, 2016, i.e., the period during which the instant appeal ought to have been filed by the assessee. In other words, there is no indication of the dislocation of public life, as contended, during the relevant period in Srinagar. In fact, even the time period up to which the said dislocation continued, assuming so, is not specified. Further, the Aunt (of the partner Sh. Sakil Ahmed Mata) is not specified, i.e., stating her name as well as the relation with the assessee, so that the explanation is vague. There is no mention of her ailment/s, or of the period during which she was hospitalized at New Delhi, with even the name of the medical institution where she was; again, assuming so,
3 ITA No. 434/Asr/2017 (AY 2012-13) Aqua Traders v. ITO hospitalized, being conspicuous by its non-mention. There is, then, no contention, that she was dependent solely or substantially on Sh. Shakeel Ahmad Matta, for him to have left his home and business to attend to her. I say so as in the normal course of events, only close relatives and, then, again, by turns, would attend to her in-as-much as it is extremely dislocating and disturbing to overlook family and work duties for a continuous period of time, which in the present case appears to be extend to almost a year. It is in fact highly improbable that the said partner would not have visited Srinagar, which rather should be at intervals of time, to look after his affairs thereat. Further still, as revealed from the assessment order, the assessments proceedings were attended by another partner, Sh. Sajad Ahmad Pathan. It is therefore incorrect to say that Sh. Shakeel Ahmad Matta looks after the tax and financial affairs of the assessee-firm. Rather, even so, so does Sh. Sajad Ahmad Pathan. If the said partner could attend the assessment proceedings, he could as well file the appeal; rather, is better equipped to do so. Finally, the application states the reasons for the delay only up to May, 2017, i.e., when the concerned partner came back from New Delhi, so that there is no explanation for the delay thereafter; the appeal having been filed only on 17.10.2017. The very fact that the condonation application was made on 12.6.2017, which has not be revised, suggests that there is no reason for the delay thereafter. No sufficient cause, in my view, has been stated, much less shown, so that the condonation application is without merit. Rather, apart from its’ merits; being not by the concerned person as well as being not accompanied by an affidavit therefrom, it is not maintainable at the threshold.
I, accordingly, do not consider it to be a fit case for the condonation of the delay, which is accordingly denied. The appeal, consequently, is not maintainable.
4 ITA No. 434/Asr/2017 (AY 2012-13) Aqua Traders v. ITO 5. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Order pronounced in the open court on April 29, 2019 Sd/- (Sanjay Arora) Accountant Member Date: 29.04.2019 /GP/Sr. Ps. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: Aqua Traders, Madina Chowk, Gowkadal, Srinagar, Kashmir (2) The Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Raj Bagh, Srinagar (3) The CIT(Appeals), Jammu (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order