BALABHADRA VENKATARAJU,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (HQRS-1), VISAKHAPATNAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 251/VIZ/2021Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 April 2022AY 2014-155 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel did not press the grounds of appeal as the appeal against an order under Section 119(2)(b) is not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a petition to condone the delay in filing the return of income for AY 2014-15, citing the prolonged illness and subsequent death of his accountant. The Principal Commissioner rejected the petition, finding the reasons unconvincing and the assessee's claims unsubstantiated.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal against an order passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act is maintainable before the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
For Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT (DR)
Hearing: 15.03.2022Pronounced: 08.04.2022

Per Shri Balakrishnan S, Accountant Member

1.

1. This appeal is filed by assessee against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short, “Pr.CIT”]-1, Visakhapatnam in DIN & Order No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2021- 22/1036078158(1) dated 30.09.2021 passed u/s 119(2)((b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15.

Balabhadra Venkatraju, Rajahmundry

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed petition for condonation of delay before the Ld.Pr.CIT, Rajamahendravaram, requesting to condone the delay in fling the return of income for the A.Y.2014-15 on 24.10.2016 after the due date 31.07.2017, by declaring total income of Rs.4,86,670/-. A report was called for from the Assessing Officer(AO), Ward-1(2), Visakhapatnam and from perusal of the AO’s report and the petition, the Pr.CIT rejected the petition for condonation of delay observing as under :

“5. From the perusal of the AO’s report and the petition, it is clear that the assessee has ample time to engage another accountant to finalize his accounts and file the return of income within due date as the accountant, who was stated to be sick, was under treatment from 26-04-2014 much prior to the due date for filing of return of income Le 3-07-2O14 as per section 130(1) of the IT Act and 3-03-2D15, the extended due date as per section 139(4) of the IT Act. Though he has almost one year of time from the hospitalization of the accountant to the return of income, he did not choose to employ an alternate accountant to finalize the accounts and to file the return of income which involves huge refund. The petitioner's plea that he could not engage alternative resources as during the relevant year the whole information and data of the assessees business was in the possession of the accountant is also not acceptable in view of the statutory requirement that all the books of accounts and the documents and data related to business are supposed to be maintained at the principal place of business only. Further, it is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner himself has admitted in his affidavit that he has filed the subject return of income on the basis of the books of accounts are not available for verification contradicting his own admission. This clearly shows that the petitioner has taken the shelter of the illness of the accountant as the reason for filing his

Balabhadra Venkatraju, Rajahmundry return of income belatedly which is not convincing and as such not acceptable.

6. On a cursory verification of the copy of return of income and P&L Account filed in response to this office letter, it is noticed that the petitioner was in receipt of interest income of the order of Rs. 4,08,000/- and commission received on sales of Rs.11,40,581/- and was claiming huge expenses under the heads depreciation, salaries and interest to bank on Term loans which do not appear to relate to the sources of income claimed, This has further prevented the department from taking up the case to scrutiny due to such belated filing of the return. The petitioner by not submitting documents (Books of accounts and supporting documents) has prevented the Income Tax Department from examining the bonafide of its claims.

6. Therefore in view of the above discussion, as the reason furnished by the petitioner for delay in filing of return of income is not acceptable and also as the petitioner has failed to prove any genuine hardship in filing the return of income within due date prescribed under the Income Tax Act, the petition for condonation of delay in filing the return of income for the Asst.Year 2014-15 is hereby rejected.

3.

Aggrieved by the order of the Pr.CIT, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds of appeal :

1.

The learned Principal Commissioner of income Tax - 1, Visakhapatnam, should have observed that the Assessee s prevented by sufficient cause in not able to file his Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 in time; 2. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Visakhapatnam, should have appreciated the fact that the accountant of the Assessee had suffered from prolonged illness and subsequently died and therefore the Assessee could not file his Return of Income in time; 3. The submissions made by the Assessee cannot be Simply brushed aside while considering the aspect of the condonation of delay in filing the Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2014-15; 4. Any other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.

Balabhadra Venkatraju, Rajahmundry

4.

During the course of appeal hearing, the Ld.AR has not pressed the above grounds as the appeal is not maintainable against the order u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act and requested for withdrawal of the appeal.

5.

The Ld.DR has not raised any objection for withdrawing the appeal.

6.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee has not pressed the grounds of appeal during the appeal hearing as the appeal is not maintainable against order u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

Order Pronounced in open Court on 08th April, 2022.

More judgments on Section 119(2)(b)

All 980 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119(2)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →