BHAVESH B MEHTA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(3)(1),, BENGALURU

These are appeals by four different assesses against the four different orders dated 1/11/2017 and 2/11/2017 of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -7 relating to assessment year 2009-10.

The assessee in is an HUF. The assesses in other appeals are individuals. The assessment in the case of all the assessees was completed by the AO for assessment year 2009-10 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. All the orders were dated 30/10/2014.

Against the orders of assessment and the determination of total income by the AO, the assessees preferred appeals before the CIT(A). There was a delay of 6 days in filing the appeal by each of the assessee’s before the CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee in CIT(A) on 10/10/2017. Appeal in the case of the assessee in ITA No.2760 and 2762/Bang/2017 was fixed for hearing before the CIT(A) on 11/10/2017. The appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2763/Bang/2017 was fixed for hearing before the CIT(A) on 25/10/2017. It is not in dispute that on the aforesaid date fixed for hearing before the CIT(A) none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The CIT(A) in his order was referred to the fact that even on 3 earlier occasions when the appeals were fixed for hearing none had appeared before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) therefore proceeded to decide the proceedings and to decide the appeal ex-parte. The CIT(A) noticed that the assessee had not even filed an application for condonation of delay in fling the appeal. The CIT(A), therefore held that since no application for condonation of delay had been filed by the assesse, the appeal of the assesee itself is invalid. All the appeals were accordingly dismissed by the CIT(A).

Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A), the assessees have preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. The ld counsel for the assessee Mr. Sunil D Surana submitted before us that the case of all the four assessees were dealt by M/s Dhariwalla and Srinivasan, C.A Firm. Mr. Sunil D Surana was partner in the said firm and he retired from the firm on 5/4/2014. He was handling the case of the assessee at the assessment stage and thereafter one Mr. Praksh S Shan, C.A partner of Dhariwalla and Srinivas, C.A was handling the affairs of all the four assessees. Mr. Prakash S Shah retired from the firm of Dhariwalla and Srinivas, C.A on 1/10/2017. After the retirement of Mr. Prakash S Shah form the firm, no other person attended to the appeals of the assesses. The prayer of the ld counsel for the assessee was that in the above circumstances, the order of the CIT(A) should be set aside and the assessees should be permitted to file application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) should consider the sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals before him and if he finds sufficient cause then the delay should be condoned and the appeals of the assessees should be decided on merits on various grounds of appeal