KUNJBIHARI JUGALKISHOR AGARWAL,AURANGABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, AURANGABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 72/PUN/2020Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2022AY 2010-114 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's condonation petition, stating that no cogent reason was provided to explain the significant delay. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a reasonable and acceptable explanation for not instituting proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 1262 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to relying on the advice of a tax consultant who advised against filing an appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned. The Tribunal considered the explanation provided by the assessee for the substantial delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA

For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JM :

1.

This assessee’s appeal for AY 2010-11 arises against the CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad’s order dated 07-06-2016 passed in case No.ABD/CIT(A)-2/144/2013-14 involving proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short the Act.

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex parte.

2.

It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s instant appeal suffers from 1262 days delay in filing. He has submitted an affidavit dated 17-01-2020 as follows :

“2. Against this Order, I had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-Aurangabad. The CIT (Appeals), Aurangabad has passed its order dt. 07-06-2016 and was received by me on 15-06-2016.

3. That after receipt of order passed by the CIT(Appeals), Aurangabad, the Tax Consultant advised me to pay income tax demand raised by the Assessing Officer vide Assessment Order dated 13.03.2013 for A.Y. 2010-11, at the earliest and also not to file appeal against the order passed by the CIT (Appeals), Aurangabad, as he has accepted the additions and if appeal is filed the Assessing Officer may take further adverse actions such as survey, levy of Penalty on additions made etc. against me and this will damage my financial position. Thus, the Tax Consultant advised that it will not be in my interest to file an appeal against the Appellate Order dated 07.06.2016 for A.Y. 2010-11.

4.

That as the Tax Consultant was looking and attending all tax matters specially Income Tax matters and he being an expert in the field of taxation, I was seeking his advise on Income Tax matters from time to time. By relying on the advise given by the Tax Consultant, I did not file the appeal before the ITAT against the Appellate Order dated 07.06.2016 for A.Y. 2010-11.

5.

That when I consulted another Chartered Accountant for second opinion. He advised that the additions made was not justified in the eyes of the Law and was unjust while assessing income. Thus, he advised me to file appeal before the ITAT against the Appellate Order dated 07.06,2016.

6.

That delay in filing of appeal against Assessment Order dated 07.06.2016 for A.Y. 2010-11 before the ITAT is not intentional or due to the negligence on my part. I have not deliberately delayed in filing the appeal against the said Assessment Order. I have relied on the advice of expert in the field, hence the appeal was not filed but when I consulted to another CA and realized that the Assessing Officer while assessing the income for A.Y. 2010-11 has done injustice, I immediately filed appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT, Pune.

7.

In view of these facts, there is a delay of almost 1262 days in filing the appeal.

I hereby confirm that the delay is attributable to the above mentioned circumstances and therefore in the interest of natural justice, I request your honors to condone the delay caused in filing the appeal and oblige.”

3.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to assessee’s foregoing condonaton averments and find no merit therein. There would be hardly any dispute that hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katijoi & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) held long back that all technical aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial justice. Their lordships latter adjudication in University of Delhi Vs. Union of India & others in Civil Appeal No. 9488- 9489/2019 dated 17-12-2019 however added caveat therein that a reasonable and acceptable explanation is very much necessary to be claimed at the concerned assessee’s behest for having not instituted the corresponding proceedings. I adopt the very reasoning herein as well and find that the assessee has not been able to submit any cogent reason so as to prove that the impugned delay of 1262 days is neither intentional nor deliberate. The foregoing condonation petition itself stands rejected therefore.

All other pleadings on merits are rendered academic.

4. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30th May, 2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →