SH. RAJ KUMAR PAL,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-4(1), CHANDIGARH

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against

the order dated 24.11.2016 of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-

II, Gurgaon [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’].

application dated 13.6.2018 for condonation of delay has been filed

which has been accompanied with affidavit of assessee, wherein, it

has been deposed that the assessee had filed appeal against the

order of the Assessing officer before the CIT(A)-II, Chandigarh

which was later on transferred to CIT(A), Gurgaon. However, the

said appeal was dismissed ex-parte as nobody appeared on behalf of

the assessee despite service of notices. It has been further deposed

ITA No. 370-Chd.-2018 Sh. Raj Kumar Pal, Chandigarh 2

in the affidavit that the said notices were not served upon the

assessee and, therefore, there was a reasonable cause for non-

appearance before the CIT(A). It has been further deposed in the

affidavit that after receipt of the copy of the order of the CIT(A) on

23.1.2017, he had handed over the documents to his counsel Shri

Mukesh Goel, C.A. but the concerned C.A. did not file the appeal.

The assessee came to know about the non-filing of the appeal only

when he received show cause notice for imposition of penalty. It

has, therefore, been stated that the assessee was prevented from

reasonable cause for non-filing of the appeal in time.

the affidavit of one Shri Mukesh Goyal S/o Sh. Ram Niwas Goyal,

wherein, it has been stated that he is a practicing C.A. and member

of the ICAI with membership No. 096887. That the assessee Shri Raj

Kumar Pal has come to his office for filing of the appeal against the

impugned order of the CIT(A), however, at that time his office was

under renovation. That inadvertently the documents of the assessee

were placed in some other file. That thereafter he (Shri Munish

Goyal) and his subordinates forget about it and that is why the appeal

of the assessee could not be filed. That when the assessee Shri Raj

Kumar Paul had received penalty notice from Assessing officer then

he enquired him about the fate of appeal and only at that time it was

realized that the appeal had not been filed and that thereafter he

traced the documents and handed over the same to the assessee. That

subsequently the assessee engaged other counsel and filed the

ITA No. 370-Chd.-2018 Sh. Raj Kumar Pal, Chandigarh 3

present appeal. That the delay in in filing the appeal was not due to

any lapse on the part of the assessee rather on the part of him i.e. the

said C.A. which was not intentional.

condonation of delay and also of the affidavits and have heard the

rival contentions. In our view, the reasons submitted by the

assessee for non-filing of the appeal in time do not constitute

sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. It seems to be an

afterthought of the assessee. The facts on the file speaks that the

assessee did not bother to attend the proceedings before the CIT(A)

and after issuing several notices of date of hearing, the Ld. CIT(A)

per force passed an ex-parte order. The assessee thereafter did not

bother to file appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated period

of limitation. There is a delay of 364 days in filing the appeal. The

plea that the assessee had handed over the documents to the counsel /

C.A. who forget to file the appeal is a general plea which now-a-

days has become a regular practice to take such plea. Even the

concerned C.As blatantly and unabashedly will claim that the

assessee had contacted them, however, they forgot to file the

appeal of the assessee. In our view, such a plea taken, so generally,

cannot be a ground for condonation of delay in each and every case.

The facts on the file speak that the assessee from the very beginning

has been reluctant to pursue the remedy of appeal either before the

CIT(A) or before this Tribunal, hence, we do not find any reason to

ITA No. 370-Chd.-2018 Sh. Raj Kumar Pal, Chandigarh 4

condone the delay in this case. The appeal of the assessee is therefore, dismissed being barred by limitation period. In the result, appeal, of the assessee is dismissed Order pronounced in the Open Court on 04.09.2018

Sd/- Sd/- (B.R.R KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 04.09 .2018 Rkk Copy to: • The Appellant • The Respondent • The CIT • The CIT(A) • The DR