PUNIT ASHOKKUMAR THAKKAR,VADODARA vs. I.T.O. WARD 3(1)(2), VADODARA, VADODARA

Grounds raised by the assessee are as under:

The assessing officer as well as first appellate authority has erred in law and on facts in making and confirming respectively the addition of Rs. 45,68,687/-. The same deserves to be deleted.

The appellant craves to reserve his right to add, alter, amend, or delete any ground of appeal during the course of hearing.”

The appeal is delayed for filing by 181 days. The assessee stated the reason for the delay to be attributable to his consultant Shri Vimal Thakkar, an Income Tax Practitioner, who was handling his matter at that time and who failed to file the appeal in time. The assessee stated that he became aware of the appeal not having been filed only when notice for demand recovery was received by him from the department and immediately thereafter, he appointed another Authorized Representative to file the appeal, which was accordingly thereafter filed, though with a delay of 181 days. This fact was stated by the assessee on a duly sworn affidavit supported by affidavit of the previous consultant, Shri Vimal Thakkar, whose inaction allegedly had resulted in delay in the filing of the present appeal. In his affidavit, Shri Vimal Thakkar stated that due to personal reasons, he was unable to file the appeal before the ITAT in the prescribed time and subsequently upon request of the assessee, he handed over the case to M/s. Chirag R. Shah & Associates for further proceedings.

Having considered the application filed by the assessee, we do not find any reasonable cause adduced by the assessee for the delay. What emanates from the entire explanation of the assessee and his Consultant, is that both of them were extremely careless and lax in their approach. The Consultant has given no reason for the delay in the filing of the appeal except for stating personal reasons, which is just a general statement. In fact, it is no reason at all. The assessee, whose appeal it is and who is ultimately responsible for filing appeal in time, also cannot shrug away his onus of filing the appeal in time, completely attributing the delay to his Consultant, who in any case as we have noted has not given any reasonable cause for the delay. For the aforestated reason we are not inclined to condone the delay in filing of the present appeal. Moreover, we have noted, that the assessee did not appear both before the AO and CIT(A), both of whom have passed order ex parte. Even before us, there was no explanation furnished by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee for not appearing before both the authorities below. The assessee clearly does not appear to be serious about the tax proceedings and has literally taken every authority for granted, not appearing both before the AO and the Ld.CIT(A) and even before us filing appeal with a considerable delay of 181 days for no reason at all.

However, during the course of hearing before us, it was brought to our notice that if the exparte orders of the authorities below is confirmed it would result in grave injustice to the assessee since the addition made was multifold the actual income

Considering the facts of the case, therefore, we are of the view that though the assessee appears to be lax in his approach, however, grave injustice would be caused to the assessee if delay in the filing of the present appeal is not condoned, since, in the absence of any fact before the AO, he treated the entire sale consideration received on the same land to be attributable to two of the alleged co-owners of the said land in entirety. In the interest of justice, therefore we consider it fit that the assessee be given an opportunity of hearing before deciding the quantum of capital gain earned on sale of land by him. Accordingly, the matter is restored back to the file of the AO for reconsideration afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. However, noting the non serious attitude of the assessee which has resulted in waste of resources and time of the government authorities including the ITAT, we impose cost of Rs.5000/- on the assessee to be paid to the Prime Ministers Relief Fund.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƠ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƠ(अपील) / The CIT(A)-

ǒवभागीय Ĥितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड[ फाईल / Guard file.