ATAM PARKASH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, PATIALA, PATIALA

At the outset, the Ld. AR for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the 1104 to 1106-Chd-2024 Atma Parkash, Patiala 2 Assessee on account callous approach of Assessee resulting in lapse of more than five years five months of delay. The ld. AR has submitted that earlier the Counsel handing the matter has died on 17.9.2020 and thereafter the Assessee was not aware about the outcome fate of the appeals and the appeals were filed against the order of the Assessing Officer dated 19.12.2017 on 12.9.2024. It was submitted that delay in filing the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) was on account of death of the ld. C.A. which happened on 17.9.2020.

The Ld. AR had further submitted that in the identical facts, the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2011-12 had condoned the delay and earlier remanded the matter to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for re-adjudication the issues.

Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that there was no ground of condonation of delay.

We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present cases, the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment orders on 19.12.2017. The death of the Ld. AR happened on 17.9.2020 and the appeals were filed before the Ld. CIT(A) on 9.6.2023. The Assessee has not given any plausible explanation for not filing the appeals after 17.9.2020 i.e. immediately after the death of the Ld. AR of the assessee. Though it is the ground that the Corona period was there from March 2020 to May 2022, however, no explanation has been given after May 2022 by the Assessee for filings the appeal on 9.6.2023.

In view of the above facts we find that the Assessee himself is negligent and callous in perusing legal remedy. We have no sympathy for such an Assessee. For the above purspeos, we may rely on the decision followed by the Tribunal in the case of “Esha Bhattacharya” Civil Appeal No. 8182-8184 of 2013 of Hon’ble Apex Court which is as under:-

1104 to 1106-Chd-2024 Atma Parkash, Patiala 4 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Esha Bhattacharya" Civil Appeal No. 8183-8184 of 2013 in which it has been held that it has been opined that generally is preferring appeal, delay are required to be condoned in the interest of justice and the courts are not supposed to reject the condonation on technical ground as it is the duty of court to grant justice.

It is pertinent to mention here that the said judgment has been followed by the Amritsar Bench of ITAT in the case of Gurfateh Films and Sippy Grewal Productions in TTA No. 92/Asr/2022 dated 23.12.2021 in which the same principles have been followed 12. Even, the judgment of Apex Court in the case of "Esha Bhattacharya' in Civil Appeal has been considered and followed by the Chandigarh Bench of the ITAT in the case of Punjab Agricultural University in 492/CHD/2022,) in which, it has been held as under:- "The expression 'sufficient cause' employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice, for that is the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. The Ld. Judges emphasized on adoption of a liberal approach while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay as ordinary a litigant does not stand to the benefit by lodging an appellate and refusal to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and the cause of justice being defeated."

The reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench, in the identical facts is misplaced, as the above facts, more 1104 to 1106-Chd-2024 Atma Parkash, Patiala 5 to demonstrate any “sufficient cause” that prevented it from filing the appeal within the prescribed time.

The reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench, in the identical facts is misplaced, as the above facts, more particularly, the date of the death of the Ld. AR was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench at the time of passing of the order. Therefore, this decision of the Coordinate Bench is clearly distinguishable as it was passed on the basis of material available on record i.e. without completely and fully discussing the relevant facts regarding the passing of the order by the Assessing Officer, death of the Ld. AR and subsequent failure of the Assessee to present the appeal within time.

In view of this, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed.