SUJIT ARUN TAWARE,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, SANGLI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE
BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2381/PUN/2024
Assessment Year : 2014-15
Sujit Arun Taware,
Krishna Building,
Near Kheradkar Petrol Pump,
Chaitanyanagar,
Sangli – 416 416
Maharashtra
PAN : AMJPT2360H
Vs.
ITO, Ward-1,
Sangli
Appellant
Respondent
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2014-15 is directed against the order dated
13.08.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre,
Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax act, 1961 (in short ‘the Assessee by :
Shri Umeshkumar
Madhukar Mali
Revenue by :
Shri Arvind Desai
Date of hearing
:
08.01.2025
Date of pronouncement
:
21.01.2025
Sujit Arun Taware
2
Act’) which inturn is arising out of the Assessment order dated
29.03.2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act.
At the outset, we find the appeal is time barred by limitation by 38 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit stating that due to dispute between the previous tax consultant and change of new counsel, the appeal could not be filed in time. The delay is not intentional and there is no negligence in preferring the appeal. On going through the averments made in the affidavit and in the absence of anything contrary, we are satisfied that there was ‘reasonable cause’ on the part of the assessee which prevented him in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, we condone the delay of 38 days in filing the appeal in the larger interest of justice and proceed for adjudication of appeal on merits.
Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual who has not filed the return of income for the year under consideration. Based on the information available with the Department that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.35,30,000/- and purchased immovable property at Rs.2,04,00,000/-, the Assessing Officer opined that income escaped assessment to tax. Notices u/s.148/142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee to which there was no compliance. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment Sujit Arun Taware
3
u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act making addition of the said sum of Rs.2,39,30,000/- u/s.68 of the Act.
Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of about 4 months and the ld.CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine, without condoning the delay by observing as under :
“8.9.7
From the above decisions it becomes clear that in the case of condonation of delay where the appeal was filed beyond the limitation of period, the courts are empowered to condone the delay, provided that the Appellant can prove his claim of inability to file appeal within the prescribed period. Litigant must be able to demonstrate that there was "sufficient cause" which obstructed his action to file Appeal beyond the prescribed time limit. The law of limitation is found upon the maxims "Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit
FinisLitium "that litigation must come to an end in the interest of society as a whole and "vigilantibus non dormientibus Jura subveniunt" that the law assists those that are vigilant with their rights, and not those that sleep thereupon. The law of limitation in India identifies the need for limiting litigation by striking a balance between the interests of the state and the litigant.
9.8 The Single Judge bench of the Hon'ble Madras HC, while exercising writ juri iction in Kathiravan Pipes Pvt. Ltd., v. CESTAT, 2007 [5] STR 9 (Mad.) has observed that the period of limitation prescribed is not for destruction of a statutory right but only to give finality without protracting the matter endlessly. Therefore, delay in filing of appeal cannot be condoned.
The reasons submitted by the appellant are held to be not bonafied so as to condone the delay. In view of the above, the delay is not condoned and the appeal is dismissed.” Sujit Arun Taware
4
5. Now the aggrieved assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee firstly submitted there was delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) which it did not condone and dismissed the appeal in limine. The ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay without specifying reasons. On merits, ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to paper book submitted that the reopening has been carried out by the AO on the basis of information received from the Sub-