Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant challenged two orders, one relating to an assessment order under Section 158BC and the other to a penalty order under Section 158BFA(2). Both appeals were filed before the CIT(A) after significant delays, which were not condoned.
Held
The Tribunal held that the appeals were filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and the appellant failed to establish any sufficient cause for the delay. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
Key Issues
The primary issue was whether the condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) was justified, given the substantial time lapse since the original orders.
Sections Cited
158BC, 143(3), 254, 144, 158BFA(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER This common order is to be dispose off the above captioned two appeals filed by the appellant, challenging two separate orders dated 29-12-2023 passed by ld. CIT(A), relating to the block period 1989-90 to 1999-2000. 2. pertains to the assessment order passed u/s 158BC read with section 143(3) read with section 254 and Section 144 of the Act. When the said assessment order was challenged before ld.CIT(A), the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed in limine, same being barred by limitation. 3. pertains to separate order u/s 158BFA(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, relating to the same block period, whereby the AO levied penalty of Rs.13,50,000/- When the penalty order was challenged before the ld. CIT(A), vide impugned order, he dismissed the appeal in limine, same being barred by limitation.
It may be mentioned here that both the above captioned appeals were presented before the Registry of ITAT in Feb. 2024. From 20-06-2024 to 21-08-2024, these appeals were adjourned on written request from counsel for the appellant on medical ground. On 21-08-2024, again adjournment was sought on behalf of the appellant, and the appeals were adjourned to 23-10-2024.This time the ground was that the assessee was contemplating to move for benefit under “Vivad Se Vivad Scheme” announced during those days. On 23-10-2024, once again, adjournment was sought on behalf of the appellant. This time, the ground for adjournment was that AR of the appellant remained in hospital from 1-10-2024 to 13-10-2024, and that the doctor advised her complete bed rest. In the interest of justice, the matters were adjourned to 18-12-2024. On 18-12-2024, once again, adjournment was sought on behalf of counsel for the appellant on medical ground that she had been blessed with a child and advised bed rest for a month. That is how, both the appeals came to be adjourned on 29-01-2025.
& 208/JP/2024 SHRI MOHD. SHAFI VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1 KOTA For 29-01-2025, surprisingly, once again, counsel for the assessee sent request for adjournment on the same ground i.e. she had been blessed with a child and advised bed rest for another 15 days. In the interest of justice, once again, the appeals were adjourned for today – 27-02-2025. Surprisingly, even today i.e. 27-02-2025 Counsel for the assessee has not put in appearance and rather, through her Office Assistant, she has communcated request for adjournment on the ground that she was unable to finalize the paper book, having returned from hospital a week back. It may be mentioned here that no medical certificate has been annexed or presented in support of the applications. Vide separate orders of even date, the applications seeking adjournment of appeals stand dismissed.
Accordingly, Learned DR for the Department has argued the appeals.
As per assessment order u/s 158BC of the Act, framed on 11.11.2005, on remand of the matter by Coordinate Benches of ITAT, Jaipur, the AO provided two opportunities to the assessee to do the needful, but, the assessee remained non-compliant. Accordingly, the AO had no option, but to proceed further and pass assessment order dated 11-11- 2005. ITA No.208/JPR/2024 7. As per penalty order u/s 158BFA(2) of the Act, passed on 19.04.2006, penalty of Rs. 13,50,000/-was imposed on the assessee-appellant relating to the abovesaid Block period, after remand of the matter relating to the abovesaid assessment order, by Coordinate Benches of ITAT, Jaipur, and the AO having provided two opportunities to the assessee therein to do the needful, and the assessee having remained non-compliant. Assessee went in appeal(s) against the fresh Assessement Order, and the Penalty Order 8. The assessee presented two appeals before the ld. CIT(A). Appeal challenging penalty order was presented on 14.12.2017. Appeal challenging the assessment order was presented on 8-09-2018. Apparently, both the appeals were filed before the ld. CIT(A) beyond prescribed period of limitation. Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced with the submissions put forth by the appellant on the point of condonation of delay as he was of the view that the assessee had failed to establish any sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeals there.
Ld. DR for the Department has submitted that the assessment order was challenged by the assessee after a period of 4615 days whereas the penalty order was challenged by filing appeal after a delay of 4219 days. Ld. DR has contended that for the reasons recorded by ld. CIT(A), both the appeals presented there were rightly dismissed in limine, when the appellant failed to establish that for ‘sufficient cause’ he was prohibited or prevented from filing of the appeals within the prescribed period of limitation, and as such, both these appeals before this Appellate Tribunal deserve to be dismissed.
We have carefully perused the record to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the Department and the grounds of appeal
put forth in the appeals. As noticed above, the assessment order was passed on 11-11-2005. The ld. CIT(A) considered that order was served on the appellant on 16-11-2005, as per acknowledgement card (AD Card), in proof of delivery of notice that was despatched by post. ld. CIT(A) was, therefore, of the view that the assessee was required to file appeal as regards the assessment order, by 15-12-2005, but, he presented the same on 08-09- 2018. Ld. CIT(A) also took into consideration that before passing the assessment order, the AO had issued notice dated 2-09-2005 and 7-10-2005 by registered post, even then the assessee did not cooperate in the assessment proceedings. The appellant claimed in the grounds of appeal presented before the ld. CIT(A) that he was not aware of the orders passed by AO, and as such, was under the impression that the matter stood closed. In this regard, the ld. CIT(A) rightly observed that ignorance of law is no excuse, and as such the ground put forth did not come to the aid of the appellant simply by having an impression that matter stood closed.
11. Ld CIT(A) was also of the view that the assessee did not produce copies of notices issued on remand of the matter, and also failed to prove that no notice was served on him, and further that he had failed to discharge the onus to prove that notice for recovery was served upon him on such and such date.
12. Another ground put forth by the appellant before Learned CIT(A) was that he was suffering from mental illness. In this regard, ld. CIT(A) observed that no documentary evidence was submitted in support of claim.
13. Still another ground put forth by the appellant before Ld. CIT(A) was that he had collected copies from Department on 30-07-2018 and filed appeals challenging the assessment. In this regard, ld. CIT(A) was of the view that even in such a situation, the appeal could have been filed by Sept. 2018, but the fact remains that appellant had failed to submit any documentary evidence that any such copy or record was received by him for the first time in July, 2018. Ultimately, the ld. CIT(A) was of the view that the assessee had failed to explain long delay of more than 12 years. Result 13. We are satisfied with reasons recorded by ld. CIT(A) in arriving at conclusion that appeal filed while challenging the assessment order, was presented after a long delay of 12 years and that appellant had failed to establish that said delay was due to bona fide reasons or any “sufficient cause”. As a result, we do not find any merit in and the same is hereby dismissed. the penalty order is dated 19-04-2006, but the appellant challenged the same by filing appeal before ld. CIT(A) on 14-12-2017.
& 208/JP/2024 SHRI MOHD. SHAFI VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1 KOTA In the impugned order, ld. CIT(A) observed that penalty order was dispatched to the assessee on 24-04-2006. He satisfied himself in this regard from the records available and observed that the appeal was required to be filed by 26-05-2006, but the same came to be filed by 14-12-2017.
Ld. CIT(A) considered the ground furnished by the appellant seeking condonation of delay that he had no knowledge of penalty order and that he came to know about the same when notice for recovery was issued by Tax Recovery Officer, Kota.
Ld. CIT(A) observed that to explain the delay in filing of the appeal, the appellant had not filed any evidence in addition to the grounds put forth and discussed while dismissing the first mentioned appeal pertaining to assessment order.
In view of the above discussion and reasons recorded while disposing of having regard to the reasons recorded by the ld. CIT(A) and in absence of any material presented by the appellant there to justify delay in filing of the appeal, we do not find any merit in this appeal as well. Result 18. Consequently, this appeal is also hereby dismissed.
Copy of this common order be placed in the record of ITA No.208/JPR/2024.