MAHOTJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 784/AHD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 September 2022AY 2010-113 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 held that the assessee failed to provide acceptable grounds for condoning the significant delay. The explanation of blaming the previous counsel was not supported by an affidavit, and thus, the Tribunal was not satisfied with the explanation.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, which was found to be time-barred by 292 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay, attributing it to the inaction of their previous Income Tax Consultant.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned based on the explanation provided by the assessee, which blamed their former counsel without supporting evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA

Hearing: 19/09/2022Pronounced: 28/09/2022

(Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Mukesh Sharma, DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 19/09/2022 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Gandhinagar (in short referred to as ld.CIT(A)) under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), dated 8.5.2018 pertaining to Asst.Year 2010-11.

2. Registry of the Tribunal has pointed out that appeal of the assessee is time barred by 292 days. The assessee has filed condonation of delay application along with affidavit. The contents of the application read as under:

“I, Mahotji Chanduji Thakor, aged about 46 years, son of Shri Chanduji Thakor resident of 208, Rabari Vas, At & Post. Sughad, Dist. Gandhinagar do solemnly affirm and state on oath as under: 1. That the appeal filed by the me before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was disposed of by order dated 08th May, 2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad.

That the time for filing of the appeal before this tribunal was to expire on 14th July, 2018.

3. That On receipt of above mentioned order, I have asked my Income Tax Consultant Shri. Harsh M. Joshi to carry out necessary appellate procedure. 4. That Mr. Harshad M. Joshi has not considered the severity of My Appeal Matter and have not filed the Appeal Memo on time. Further I also state that I being a farmer does not have any legal knowledge of Income Tax Act and other relevant legislation. I am having Income only from Agriculture activities and therefore I was not filing my return of Income being the agriculture income is exempt from Income Tax. 5. That on receipt of Notice of Penalty Proceedings under section 276C(2) I have rushed to my Income Tax Consultant Mr. Harshad Joshi for filing reply and on asking for the stage at which matter is pending, he accepted that he haven't filed any appeal before Hon'ble ITAT. 6. That I got prepared another Memo of Appeal from Shri C.P Shah C.A on the next day i.e. on 02nd May, 2019 and Mr. Shah have filed the Appeal Memo before the Hon'ble ITAT same day. 7. That the Memo of Appeal has been filed on 02nd May, 2019 in the Office of the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad.”

The crux of reason for delay in filing appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal is the inaction and omission on the part of his counsel Shri Harshad M. Joshi, and therefore, the assessee had to rush to another counsel. This fact has not be authenticated or vouched by Shri Harshad M. Joshi by filing an affidavit which caused a huge delay of 292 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. I am of the view that the assessee has not set out any acceptable ground for the purpose of condoning the delay of 262 days and simply passed blame on to the earlier counsel which defense was not even supported by any affidavit. In the circumstances, it is apparent, no bona fide reason has been made by the assessee for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, rather an attempt has been made to explain the delay by attributing default on the part of the concerned advocate, which averment I will not appreciate in the absence of an affidavit by the concerned legal counsel. Thus, I am not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee in the application so as to persuade me to exercise discretionary power to condone delay of 292 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as un-admitted.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →