Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI N.S. SAINI & SMT. BEENA A PILLAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘A’, NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1/Del/2015 AY: 2009-10
Bansi Lal and Sons ACIT B 8/6, Sector 3 vs. Circle 38(1) Rohini New Delhi New Delhi 110 085 PAN: AAEFB4098H (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Sh. K.Sampath, Adv. Department by : Smt. Aastha Lakshmi, Sr.D.R.
Date of Hearing : 05/03/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 28/03/2019
ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee against order dated 22/11/12 passed by Ld. CIT (A)-27, New Delhi for assessment year 2009-10 on following grounds of appeal: That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the authorities below erred: 1. in invoking provisions of section 145 (3) of the Act and rejecting the books of accounts maintained in the normal course of business and duly audited u/s 44AB of the Act; 2. in making addition of Rs.64,26,409/-on account of alleged discrepancies in the creditors account even though books of accounts had been rejected;
ITA No. 01/Del/2015 AY-2009-10 Bansi lal and Sons vs. ACIT
in making addition of Rs.3,50,000/-to cover up the alleged unverifiable labour and other expenses merely on the basis of surrender made at the time of assessment;; 4. in making addition of Rs.9,53,095/-on account of alleged difference in the gross receipts. All the above actions being arbitrary, erroneous and unjust must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief.
It has been brought to our notice that assessee has filed appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 696 days. Accordingly an application for condonation of delay along with affidavit dated 31/12/14 has been filed by assessee. In application filed by assessee, it is stated that assessee was advised of chances of getting relief in further appeal to be remote, in view of surrender made during assessment proceedings. Ld.Counsel submitted that assessee did not prefer appeal against quantum proceedings also for the reason that assessee had expected penalty proceedings will not be initiated against assesseee. However, subsequently penalty was levied on same issue for year under consideration and was decided against assessee. Ld.Counsel submitted, at that point of time filing of appeal before the Tribunal was advised by the then Counsel who was familiar with Income Tax litigations. Such advise was given to assessee on 19/12/14 regarding appeal in quantum addition to be filed mandatorily against order passed by Ld. CIT (A), thereby causing delay of 696 days. Ld.Counsel placed reliance upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji reported in [1987] 167 ITR 471 and CIT vs West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Ltd., reported in 334 ITR 269. It has been submitted that delay has been
ITA No. 01/Del/2015 AY-2009-10 Bansi lal and Sons vs. ACIT
occurred due to lack of knowledge of assessee about intricacies of tax law. 3. Ld.Counsel prayed for delay to be condoned in present case. 4. On the contrary Ld.Sr.DR submitted that assessee has failed to substantiate huge delay of 626 days in filing an appeal before this Tribunal against quantum addition, with justified cause. She submitted that application must be rejected in limine. 5. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 6. On perusal of penalty order passed, it is observed that order is dated 27/10/14, whereas in application for condonation of delay assessee mentioned that Ld.CIT(A) decided penalty appeal against assessee and therefore on 19/12/14, another Counsel advised assessee to file appeal in quantum proceedings before this Tribunal. 6.1. The assessed income in hands of assessee for year under consideration was Rs.1,05,34,180/-as against returned income filed by assessee at Rs.28,04,680/-. 6.2. Somehow afore stated reason cited by assessee in application for condonation of delay as well as submitted by Ld.Counsel does not inspire any confidence. The reasoning for not filing appeal in quantum proceedings before this Tribunal, do not amount to be ‘sufficient cause’ in order to apply the decisions relied upon by Ld.Counsel of Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6.3. From the arguments advanced by Ld.Counsel, it is apparent that assessee took conscious decision not to prefer appeal against quantum proceedings before this Tribunal. And also that, there is no concept of ‘pre bargaining’ under Income Tax Act. We are thus
ITA No. 01/Del/2015 AY-2009-10 Bansi lal and Sons vs. ACIT
of the opinion that, reasons as shown by assessee, does not fall within parameters of sufficient cause so as to confer benefit of condonation of delay. This is because, assessee took a well considered decision not to take up further proceedings against order dated 22/11/12, and therefore he did not approach any other litigating professional even after huge addition that was confirmed by Ld.CIT (A). 6.4. Under the circumstances the condonation application stands dismissed. 7. In view of the dismissal of condonation application, appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 28/03/2019. Sd/- Sd/- (N.S. SAINI) (BEENA A PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dt. 28th March, 2019 GMV Copy forwarded to: - Appellant Respondent CIT CIT(A) DR, ITAT - TRUE COPY - By Order,
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT Delhi Benches
ITA No. 01/Del/2015 AY-2009-10 Bansi lal and Sons vs. ACIT
Date Draft dictated on 22/03/19 Draft placed before author 25/03/19 26/03/19 Draft proposed & placed before the second member Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Kept for pronouncement on 28/03/19 & Order uploaded on : File sent to the Bench Clerk Date on which file goes to the AR Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. Date of dispatch of Order.