SH. JAGTAR SINGH,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR, ALWAR

The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal.

Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.”

Brief fact as culled out from the record is that as per information available with Revenue, the assessee had not filed his ITR for the relevant year whereas as per details of 26AS, the deductors have deducted TDS of Rs. 4,80,500/- on aggregating receipts of Rs. 17,31,096/- under the head salary. This resulted in escape of income to the extent of Rs. 17,31,096/-. In these circumstances, reasons were recorded, and proposal was moved to the Principle commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar, for granting approval to issue of notice u/s 148, and the same has been approved.

Aggrieved by the above order of the assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Based the grounds so taken and the submission so made by the assessee, the appeal of the assessee was decided on 30.05.2024 and the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) reads as under: - “4. DECISION: 4.1 I have gone through the facts of the case. As per the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act, there should be sufficient cause for the appellant for not presenting the appeal within the time allowed. The relevant provisions read as under:- "The CIT(A) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period.” Under section 249(3) of the Act, the appellate authority may, on good and sufficient reason for the delay being shown, admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of limitation. 4.2 On the issue of delay in filing the appeal, the appellant didn't submit any documentary evidences to explain the delay in the form of affidavits, proof of service of notice etc despite sufficient opportunities of being heard were given to the appellant. It also shows that the appellant was casual in attitude. 4.3 In the case of Satbarg Singh v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-2 (3), Chandigarh [2015] 61 taxmann.com 46 (Chandigarh Trib.), it was held that in condoning the delay the appellate authority must be satisfied Sh. Jagtar Singh vs. ACIT that there has been due diligence on the part of the appellant and it was not guilty of negligence. The sufficient cause within the contemplation of these provisions must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the provisions. 4.4 In the instant case, the reason given by the appellant appears to be a lame excuse. Thus, the cause as explained by the appellant doesn't appear to be reasonable and sufficient. The language used in section 249(3) is "sufficient cause" and not "reasonable cause" Sufficient cause' is much more stringent that the term 'reasonable cause' and even if a cause is reasonable, it has to be ascertained whether it was a sufficient cause or not. The cause given by the appellant is very general and unverifiable. If this kind of reason is accepted, then any one can take this plea. It has already been discussed above that for qualifying u/s 249(3) for condonation of delay, the appellant must show that he was diligent all along with taking appropriate steps and if he appears to be guilty of lapses or negligence, then he must be prepared to have his remedy barred without expecting condonation. 4.5 Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Basawaraj and Ors vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer, held that the sufficient cause does not include the negligent manner in which the applicant had acted or and there was a want of bona fide, on his/her part. If a party does not act diligently or remains inactive, it cannot qualify as sufficient ground allowing the court to exercise discretion in favour of such a party. We are further of the view that condonation of delay is not an automatic right but requires the person requesting it to provide a valid explanation for each day of delay and demonstrate a reasonable cause. The discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. "Sufficient Cause cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributing to the party. 4.6 On the basis of the circumstances of the case, it is held that the appellant was not having "sufficient cause" for delay in filing appeal. The appeal filed by the appellant is held to be invalid and non- maintainable being out of time. For statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as DISMISSED in-limine.

In the result, the appellant's appeal is DISMISSED.”

The assessment order was received by the assessee on 11.05.2019. Against this order assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) on 06.06.2019. The fact of receiving the order on 11.05.2019 was also stated by the assessee in application dt. 06.06.2019 for condonation of delay (PB 9) filed before CIT(A). Further before Ld. CIT(A) assessee filed detailed submission (PB 1-6) along with additional evidences. The Ld. CIT(A) called for remand report. During remand proceedings AO vide letter dt. 16.05.2024 (PB 22-23) sought information from assessee. In response to same assessee filed the reply on 20.05.2024 (PB 10- 15). The Ld. CIT(A), however, without considering the same dismissed the appeal by holding that assessee did not submit any documentary evidence to explain the delay in filing the appeal. Submission:

At the outset it is submitted that assessee was residing out of India since 25.10.2014. He has filed his last ITR for AY 2015-16 and the e- mail id given in the ITR was inoperative. Thus notices issued and the assessment order was not received by the assessee. Assessee came to know about the assessment proceedings when the bank account was seized by the department. The assessee vide letter dt. 08.05.2019 requested to provide the assessment order and penalty order which was provided by the AO vide letter dt. 10.05.2019 (copy enclosed) on 11.05.2019. Thus from the date of receipt of order, the appeal filed by the assessee is in time. The fact of having received the order on 11.05.2019 has been mentioned in Form No.35 which is also not denied in the remand report called by CIT(A) from the AO. Thus the appeal dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that there is delay in filing the appeal is incorrect.

Copy of bond certificate for deduction claimed u/s 16 Both 80CCF 6. Copy of interest certificates dt. 20.05.2024 by PNB 17-18 Both bank against the housing loan 7. Copy of Form 16 of assessee 19-21 Both 8. Copy of letter dt. 16.05.2024 by AO seeking 22-23 Both information during the remand proceedings 9. Copy of LIC premium certificate for deduction 24 Both claimed u/s 80C

During hearing, in addition to the written submission and evidence so filed by the ld. AR of the assessee vehemently argued that the ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact of the case that the order disputed before him was served on 11.05.2019 by a letter dated 10.05.2019. Copy of which placed on record. Therefore, in fact the contention of ld. CIT(A) that the appeal is filed by the Sh. Jagtar Singh vs. ACIT assessee with a delay of 189 days is without consideration the fact on record. As regards the merit of the case, the assessee submitted that the deduction claimed by the assessee was not allowed because of noncompliance at the end of the assessee, during assessment proceedings. Whereas ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate that the appeal filed before them was not delayed.

We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The bench noted that the ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact of the case that the order disputed before him was served on 11.05.2019 by a letter dated 10.05.2019. Copy of which placed on record and the same was not disputed by the ld. AO through the ld. DR. Therefore, in fact the contention of ld. CIT(A) that the appeal is filed by the assessee with a delay of 189 days is without consideration the fact on record. Based on these set of facts as supported by evidence that the ld. AO has served the order to the Sh. Jagtar Singh vs. ACIT assessee on 11.05.2019 the appeal cannot be considered as filed belated and therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. Now, the issue before us on the merits of the case is that the assessee submitted that the deduction claimed by the assessee was not allowed because of noncompliance at the end of the assessee, during assessment proceedings. The assessee before the ld. CIT(A) has filed the additional evidence which the ld. CIT(A) after admitting the same forwarded it to ld. AO for asking the report in the remand proceeding. The fact that the ld. CIT(A) has sought the remand report is evident from the notice dated 16.05.2024 [ page 22-23 of the paper book ] issued by the ld. AO. In that letter issued by the ld. AO he has called for the various records which the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the same was provided on 20.05.2024 [ page 10-15 of the paper book ]. Thus, it is not under dispute that the assessee has not provided the details in the remand proceeding. From the submission so made before the ld. AO in the remand proceeding, we note that the assessee has filed the certificate for the claim u/s. 24(b) and 80C and as regards the deduction u/s. 80CCF for the infrastructure bond the assessee filed Sh. Jagtar Singh vs. ACIT the proof of bond investment made. All the uploaded documents are placed on record before the ld. AO and the same was filed by the assessee in the present appeal. The ld. AR through the ld. DR did not object to these documents and thus considering the relied upon decision of the Coordinate Bench in case of Zuari Leasing & Finance Ltd. vs. ITO (2008) 112 ITD 205 (Del.Trib.) wherein it was held that the issue be decided by the Bench and justice should not be delayed as the issue is very small petty we considered the prayer of the assessee. The bench noted that in the appellate proceeding before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee seek permission for filling the additional evidence which was considered by the ld. CIT(A) and the remand report on those evidence was called from the ld. AO. The assessee in the remand proceeding submitted all the details which are under dispute and the proof of the same is also placed on record. The bench noted that the assessee has disputed the addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- under section 24(b) of the Act, Rs. 1 lac under section 80C of the Act and Rs. 20,000/- under section 80CCF of the Act. Related to this deduction claimed by the assessee from the salary income offered by the assessee him, were already Sh. Jagtar Singh vs. ACIT placed on record in the remand proceeding before the ld. AO but the bench do not intend to go into the reasons as to why the same was not found discussed in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and considering the fact that the ld. AO has considered that additional evidence and he failed to placed on record the same before us when the appeal were placed on record we considered that there is not adverse remarks on the same and therefore, considering the issue being allowing of the deduction rejected on account of non- submission of proof which the assessee placed on record in the remand proceeding we direct the ld. AO to allow the deduction claimed by the assessee. Based on this discussion we considered ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is also allowed. Ground no. 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are general and no specific arguments were raised and therefore, the same are not required to be adjudicated. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.