VISHWANATH MHATARJI METE,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, AURANGABAD

2 to 1354/PUN/2018 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts relevant to the appeal in ITA No.1349/PUN/2018 for the assessment year 2008-09 are stated herein. ITA No.1349/PUN/2018 : 4. During the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2008-09, the Assessing Officer noticed that the tax due on the returned income had not been paid. Accordingly, the appellant was show caused vide notice dated 04.01.2016, however, despite several opportunities granted to the appellant, the appellant had not filed any explanation before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had proceeded with levy of penalty u/s 221 of the Act for non-payment of self-assessment tax due on the returned income and levied penalty of Rs.2,97,250/- vide order dated 29.06.2016.

Being aggrieved by the above order of penalty, the appellant had preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Even before the ld. CIT(A), despite several opportunities granted to the appellant, the appellant could not offer any explanation as to how he was prevented from paying the self-assessment tax due on the returned income. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was constrained to dispose of the appeal on merits confirming the levy of penalty as there is no 3 ITA Nos.1349 to 1354/PUN/2018 material on record indicating as to how the appellant was prevented from the payment of self-assessment tax due on the returned income.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is before us in the present appeal.

There is a delay in filing the above captioned six appeals by 68 days and the assessee had filed an affidavit for condoning the delay stating that the delay occurred on account of wrong advice given by the consultant who advised to prosecute the remedy under the provisions of section 154 of the Act whereas another consultant had advised for filing the appeals, in the process the delay had occurred. The above averments made in the affidavit were not controverted by the ld. Sr. DR. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the appellant is prevented by sufficient reasonable cause from filing the appeals within the time. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 68 days in filing the appeals.

Even before us, despite several notices of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. On careful perusal of the grounds of appeal raised before us, we find that there is no ground pleading the difficulty or reasonable cause for non-payment of self- assessment tax due on the returned income. In the circumstances,