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

Sh. Jagtar Singh vs. ACIT Consequently, notice u/s 148 dated 29.03.2018 was issued to the assessee, which stands duly served upon the assessee through e-mail. However, the same remained unattended with. Therefore, further notices u/s 142(1) dated 11.07.2018 was issued to the assessee which also stand duly served upon the assessee through e-mail. However, the same too remained unattended with. Therefore, a last and final opportunity was given to the assessee by issuing further notice u/s 142(1) dated 01.08.2018. The notice too stands served upon the assessee through e-mail, but this notice too remained unattended with. Since, the assessee did not comply with any notice issued by the ld. AO thus remained totally non-cooperative with the department, therefore, he left with no other option but to complete the case u/s 144 of the Act as ex- parte based on the material available on record.

3.1 Ld. AO noted that the assessee had received total salary, including perquisites & allowances of Rs. 23,21,060/- from M/s Lard Chloro Alkali Ltd. In respect of exemption and deduction claimed and allowed, it is revealed that the employer company of the assessee has certified, in the shape of Form 16, that the assessee is entitled for exemption, u/s 10, amounting to Rs. 9,600/-, on account of transport allowance. Therefore, the same is Sh. Jagtar Singh vs. ACIT allowable to the assessee. Since, the assessee did remain non- cooperative with the Department, the evidences in respect of deductions claimed, u/s 24(b), 80C & 80CCF, by the assessee and allowed by the employer, could not be verified and thus, the deductions claimed by the assessee, u/s 24(b), 80C & 80CCF was rejected and his income from salary is computed at Rs. 23,11,460/-

4. 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.

Sh. Jagtar Singh vs. ACIT 5. As the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on account of not considering the delay the appeal of 189 days by the ld. CIT(A), without discussing the merits of the case.

Aggrieved from that order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal on the ground as stated hereinabove. In support of the grounds so raised the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has placed reliance on the written submission which is extracted herein below:-

“Facts:-

1. 1. Assessee is a NRI living at Doha, Qatar since 25.10.2014. During the year under consideration he was employed with M/s Lord Chloro Alkali Ltd. in India from whom salary of Rs.23,21,060/- was received. The assessee did not file the ITR as he was under impression that he is not required to file the same as all the taxes was paid as per Form 16 (PB 19-21).

2. The AO on the basis of information available with him observed that assessee had not filed his ITR for the relevant year whereas as per Form 26AS the deductors have deducted TDS of Rs.4,80,500/- on aggregate receipts of Rs.17,31,096/- under the head salary. This resulted in escapement of income to the extent of Rs.17,31,096/-. Accordingly AO issued notice u/s 148 dt. 29.03.2018 on e-mail which remained uncomplied with. Thereafter notices u/s 142(1) was issued on e-mail which also remained uncomplied with. The AO conducted enquiry u/s 133(6) from M/s Lord Chloro Alkali Ltd. from where details of salary, exemption and deduction was gathered as under:- Total salary received including perquisite & allowance Rs.23,21,060/- Less: Exemption on account of transport allowance u/s 10 Rs. 9,600/- Deduction on account of interest on borrowed capital u/s 24(b) Rs. 1,50,000/- Deduction on account of LIP/house loan repayment u/s 80C Rs. 1,00,000/- Sh. Jagtar Singh vs. ACIT Deduction on account of investment in infrastructure bond u/s 80CCF Rs. 20,000/- Total taxable salary Rs. 20,41,460/- 3. The AO on the basis of Form 16 allowed exemption u/s 10 on account of transport allowance but in the absence of evidences did not allowed deductions claimed u/s 24(b), 80C & 80CCF and computed the income from salary at Rs.23.11,460/- (23,21,060-9600) vide order dt. 30.10.2018.

4. 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:

1.

2. On merit it is submitted that in the remand proceedings assessee has submitted evidence of claim of deduction u/s 24(b) in respect of interest paid on housing loan (PB 17-18). evidence of house loan repayment and LIC premium paid for claiming deduction u/s 80C (PB 17-18 & 24) and for claim of deduction u/s 80CCF (PB 16). Thus when evidence for claim of deduction was filed during the remand proceedings and the same is also considered by the employer in Form No.16 (PB 19-21), AO be directed to allow the same in as much as when all facts are on record, remanding the matter back to the AO would cause genuine Sh. Jagtar Singh vs. ACIT hardship and only linger on the proceedings. For this purpose reliance is placed on the following cases: Zuari Leasing & Finance Ltd. Vs. ITO (2008) 112 ITD 205 (Del.) (Trib.) (TM) The Honb'le ITAT at Para 10 of the order held as under: "10. It is clear from above that primary power, rather obligation of the Tribunal, ix to dispose of the appeal on merits. The incidental power to remand, is only an exception and should be sparingly used when it is not possible to dispose of the appeal for want of relevant evidence, lack of finding or investigation warranted by the circumstancex of the case. Remand in a casual manner and for the sake of remand only or as a short cut, is totally prohibited. It has to be borne in mind that litigants in our country have to wall Re long to have fruit of legal action and expect the Tribunal to decide on meria. ix therefore, all the more necessary that matter should be decided on merit withoud allowing one of the parties before the Tribunal to have another inming, particularly when such party had full opportunity to establish its case. Unnecessary remands, when relevant evidence is on record, belies litigant's legitimate expectations and is to be deprecated. Having regard to aforesaid principle, it is necessary to look into records to see whether there is sufficient material on record to dispose of the issue on merit and there is no need to remand the issue to provide a fresh inning to the Revenue." Srimanta Shankar Academy Vs. ITO (2007) 107 ITD 99 (Gauhati) (Trib.) (TM) The Honb'le ITAT at Para 10 of the order held as under:- "It is true that remand of a matter is discretionary. But such discretion is required to be shown to be exercised in a judicial manner. In the case of Saurashtra Packaging (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1996) 131 CTR (Guj) 40: (1993) 204 ITR 443 (Guj), their Lordships of Gujarat High Court have observed that where matter can be disposed of by the Tribunal on the basis of material already on record, a remand should not be resorted to. It is always necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceeding and to save time. There are large number of decisions of High Courts and Supreme Court where instead of directing the Tribunal to make a reference of question under s. 256(2), the Courts while disposing of reference application answered the question sought to be referred and directed the Tribunal to proceed in a particular manner. All this is done to save time and multiplicity of proceeding. I am convinced that such a course to save time should have been adopted in this case and remand of the matter is totally unnecessary. I say so for the reasons and after noting following facts available on record."

Sh. Jagtar Singh vs. ACIT 6. To support the various grounds so raised by the ld. AR of the assessee he also relied upon the following evidences in support of the contentions so raised:-

S. No. Particulars Pg No. Filed before AO/CIT(A) 1. Copy of submission filed before ld. CIT(A) 1-6 CIT(A) 2. Copy of computation of total income 7-8 Both 3. Copy of application dt. 06.06.2019 for condonation of 9 CIT(A) delay filed before Ld. CIT(A) 4. Copy of acknowledgement and reply dt. 20.05.2024 10-15 AO filed before DCIT, Alwar in remand proceedings.

5. 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

The ld. AR of the assessee relying on the decision of Coordinate Bench in case of Zuari Leasing & Finance Ltd. vs. ITO (2008) 112 ITD 205 (Del.Trib.) submitted that the issue be decided by the Bench and justice should not be delayed as the issue is very small petty. The ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that in this case before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee submitted evidences and based on that evidences, the ld. CIT(A) called for remand report from the Ld. Assessing Officer this fact is evident from the copy of notice issued pursuant to the remand proceedings by the ld. ACIT, Circle-1, Alwar dated 16.05.2024 placed on record. The assessee replied to that notice on 20.05.2024 submitting all the details and enclosures to the details so called for by the ld. AO even this letter forms part of the paper book so filed by the assessee.

Sh. Jagtar Singh vs. ACIT 8. Per contra, ld. DR vehemently argued that the assessee remain non-compliant and order has been passed ex-parte by both the lower authorities, the contention raised by the assessee that the remand proceedings was undertaken in the case of the assessee is not discussed in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and is not forming part of the body of the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, there is no proof that the documents so filed by the ld. AR of the assessee has seen the light of the day. Therefore, the matter to be sent back to the file of the ld. AO so as to decide the issue after making appropriate verification on the claim of the deduction made by the assessee.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 09/09/2024.