KARROX TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 10(2), MUMBAI

The present appeal filed by assessee against the order of CIT(A)-21, Mumbai, dated 02.02.2011for AY-2002-03.

The appeal is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay and affidavit of Shri Darshan Shah, Director of assessee-company. The contents of affidavit disclosed that impugned order was served upon the assessee on 21.02.2011 and the assessee was required to file appeal before this Tribunal on or before 21.04.2011. The affidavit further disclosed that assessee-company is huge loss making company and the Accountant to whom the work of filing of appeal was assigned left the assessee- company and thus they could not contact their counsel. The regular Chartered Accountant (C.A.) did not inform the assessee to file their right nor filed the appeal. The assessee approached another counsel for taking advice and the appeal was filed. The similar contents are repeated in the accompanying petition for condonation of delay.

We have heard the Authorized Representative (AR) of assessee and Departmental Representative (DR) for Revenue. AR of the assessee relied upon the contents of affidavit and the decision referred in paragraph 2 of the affidavit and prayed for taking a lenient view while considering the condonation of delay. On the other hand, DR for Revenue strongly opposed that condonation of appeal the application and argued that the appeal be dismissed as no sufficient ground is disclosed in the affidavit for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. The grounds disclosed in the affidavit are not sufficient one and are absolutely vague.

We have considered the rival contentions of the assessee and the decisions referred in the affidavit and the contention of the Ld DR for Revenue. The assessee has pleaded in the affidavit that the Accountant, who was looking after the filing of appeal of the assessee, left the assessee and the assessee could not contact their counsel. Neither the name of the Accountant is not disclosed nor is the time when the said Accountant left the assessee company disclosed. The assessee further pleaded in the affidavit that their regular C.A. did not inform them to avail the right nor guided them to file the appeal before this Tribunal. Similarly, neither the name of the C.A. is referred nor the name of such person who allegedly advised the assessee to take remedial step is disclosed. All the contents pleaded in the affidavit are absolutely vague; no specific name of the person is mentioned in the affidavit. Affidavit is filed in a casual manner. The contents of the affidavit do not disclose any reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee has apart from making vague pleas failed to advert any valid reason for condonation of delay as per the affidavit filed on record. No doubt, the compliance of law is generally made the professional, so that it is incomprehensible that while assessee is know of the provision for filing first appeal before the CIT(A) under the Income-tax Act, it is not so with regard to the applicable procedure for filing the second appeal before the Tribunal. The entire conduct of the assessee is full of latches. The case laws cited by assessee in his affidavit do not match with grounds disclosed by the assessee in his affidavit. The assessee has not explained the delay in proper manner. Assessee failed to disclose as to when their Accountant left the work of assessee-company, who was the regular C.A., who did not inform the assessee to file the appeal. And what step taken by the assessee against such professional, who had commited, such professional misconduct. The fact pleaded by the deponent in their affidavit does not inspire confidence. So we are not convince with the ground pleaded for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.

Since no sufficient cause for condoning the delay is disclosed in the affidavit and petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. As condonation of appeal is dismissed, discussing on the merits and demerits of the case becomes academic. Resultantly, appeal of the assessee is not admitted for admission and the same is rejected being time barred.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 22nd June, 2016.