SHRI NATWAR R BHARDWAJ,SURAT vs. ITO WARD-1(2) (3), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1718/AHD/2017Status: HeardITAT Surat07 December 2022AY 2012-136 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's application for condonation of delay as the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause and evidence. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was not admitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 123 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to the previous counsel misplacing the assessment order. The assessee's current counsel also sought to withdraw their authority due to non-cooperation from the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned based on the explanation provided by the assessee. Whether the assessee has shown sufficient cause for the inordinate delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(1),Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

�नधा�रतीक�ओरसे /Assessee by None राज�वक�ओरसे /Revenue by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 07.12.2022 उ�घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of 07.12.2022 pronouncement Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2 Surat [for short to as “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 02.01.2017 for the assessment year 2012-13, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) on 23.03.2015. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (A.Y 12-13) Sh. Natwar R Bhardwaj has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.43,82,910/- as unexplained advances.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.29,70,000/- as unexplained unsecured loans u/s 68 of I.T. Act.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.98,571/- u/s 50C of I.T. Act.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making disallowance of Rs.1,23,300/ being 30% of total salary expenses. 5. It is therefore prayed that above additions made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (A0ls) may please be deleted.” 2. On perusal of record, it reveals that Ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order on 02.01.2017, however, the present appeal is filed by assessee on 11.07.2017, thus there is delay of 123 days in filing appeal before Tribunal. On further perusal of record, we find that a defect memo was issued to assessee, intimating the delay of 123 days in filing of appeal before Tribunal. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay vide application dated 05.07.2017. In (A.Y 12-13) Sh. Natwar R Bhardwaj application for condonation of delay, the assessee has contended that assessee has received order of Ld. CIT(A) on 09.01.2017 and he handed over the documents to his Ld. Counsel, who was representing assessees case before Ld. CIT(A). The said Ld. counsel mis-placed the assessment order, therefore, the assessee was unable to file appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Thereafter, the assessee contracted his present representative who obtained copy of assessment order from the office of Ld. CIT(A) therefore the appeal was filed before the Tribunal. The assessee in his application prayed for condoning the delay. 3. Today, when the case was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of assessee nor filed any adjournment application. The appeal was filed on 11.07.2017 and assessee was seeking dates through his Ld. counsel on one ground or other. On perusal of record it shows that Ld. counsel who was representing on behalf of assessee has already placed application for permission to withdraw their authority letter, on the plea that they have sent numerous letters to assessee as well as instructing Chartered Accountant to provide information and details, however, no ITA No.1718/SRT/2017 (A.Y 12-13) Sh. Natwar R Bhardwaj such details and information is provided to Ld. counsel of assessee. The Ld. counsel has already intimated the assessee about the withdrawal of authority letter vide letter dated 26.11.2022 sent through Courier and copy of received is already placed on record. Under such circumstances, we have no option but to submission of Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Ld.Sr-DR) for the Revenue to decide the application as well as appeal of assessee on the basis of materials available on record.

4.

We have heard the submissions of Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue. The ld Sr DR for the revenue submits that assessee is habitual in not making compliance. The assessee has not made compliance on various notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) which is recorded in para-6.1.1 of the impugned order. The Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that in the application for condonation of delay, the assessee has not shown sufficient cause. The assessee has simply pleaded that documents were handed over to his previous Ld. counsel from whom such documents were mis- placed and name of such person is not disclosed. Thus, the assessee has prepared a vague story. There is inordinate (A.Y 12-13) Sh. Natwar R Bhardwaj delay of more than four months and the assessee failed to show his reasonable record. Therefore, application for condonation of delay may be dismissed.

5.

We have heard the submissions of learned Senior Departmental Representative (Sr-DR) for the Revenue and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We find that even before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has not made proper compliance against various notices issued. Thus, we find that on merit of the submission made by Ld. Sr-DR that assessee is negligent in making such compliance of various notices. In filing appeal before Tribunal, the assessee filed his appeal belatedly that is after more than four months of period of limitation, the assessee has taken vague plea that his earlier counsel has mis-placed the assessment order and name of such person is not disclosed by assessee. The assessee has not supported the averment of his application for condonation of delay by filing his own affidavit or affidavit of such person who lost / mis-placed the assessment order/ record. Thus in absence of sufficient cause, we find no reason to condone the delay. Resultantly, application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Thus,

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →