JUMMA KHAN PATHAR NISHA,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,NON CORPORATE WARD-12(1), CHENNAI

आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

2 Smt. Jumma Khan Pathar Nisha Meenakshi Sundaram, ITP, Ld. Counsel for the assessee represented the matter before us and referred to the petition filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, along with affidavit of the assessee dated 24.12.2020. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee explained the reasons for the delay of 1125 days by stating that the assessee received the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on 30.09.2017, which was handed over by her to the auditor Shri Abdul Azeez Ariff. It was explained that the auditor had given an assurance to the assessee that arrangements will be made for filing the appeal through an Advocate. The assessee was under the belief that auditor have filed the appeal before the Tribunal in time, though, it was not done so by the auditor, fact of which came to her knowledge at a later point of time. Later on she learnt that the auditor Shri Abdul Azeez Ariff was under certain medical ailment and ultimately expired on 14.06.2020.

According to him, such an approach does not demonstrate a responsible behavior on the part of the assessee.

3 Smt. Jumma Khan Pathar Nisha that Shri. Dhool Chand Varma, FCA appeared on behalf of the assessee as authorized representative before the Ld. AO in the assessment proceedings. Further, from the order of Ld. CIT(A), it is noted that Shri. K. Meenakshi Sundaram, ITP, appeared before the first appellant authority and represented the matter of the assessee in appeal. Even before us, the assessee is represented by Shri K. Meenakshi Sundaram, ITP. These facts show that for attending the proceedings before the authorities below, competent professional engagements were made by the assessee for effective representation of her case at various stages. The general and vague reasons given to explain the delay of more than 3 years by passing the buck on the shoulders of auditor does not speak about the reasonable and responsible approach in handling the matter, wherein the tax demand for the sum of Rs. 16,34,530/- is involved. With the demand of such an amount remaining outstanding on the part of the tax payer, there is a reasonable expectation of being vigilant and responsible in taking up these matters in a diligent way. The facts so narrated and explained by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee through the petition for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal do not convince us in order to proceed us to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to 4 Smt. Jumma Khan Pathar Nisha dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The facts otherwise noted from the assessment order and the first appellant authority in respect of professional representation before the authorities below do not favour the assessee in order to support the contentions made in the petition for condonation of delay. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for condonation of delay filed by the assessee in the instant appeal.

Order pronounced on 23rd May, 2022 at Chennai.