Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM:
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar dated 24.09.2019
in respect of Assessment Year: 2017-18.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
2 I.T.A. No. 7/Asr/2022 Nitin Sehgal v. Dy.CIT “1. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is against law and facts of the case on the file. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) gravely erred in sustaining the assessment wrongly framed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) gravelly erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 6,50,000/- in respect of cash seized from the assessee. 3.1 That while sustaining the addition, the Ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the source of amounts and the cash flow chart filed during the assessment proceedings. 4. That the appellant begs to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off.”
None appeared for the assessee in spite of the fact that the appellant
has been given many opportunities of being heard by fixing hearing on
01.09.2022, 17.11.2022, 16.02.2023, 22.03.2023 and 26.04.2023 except
Sh. Nitin Sehgal, the appellant itself had appeared only once on
16.02.20223 and short adjournment with a request to file written
submission. However, on subsequent dates, he neither appeared nor any
Authorized Representative (AR) did appear on behalf of the appellant. It
was noticed that there was a delay of 781 days in filing the appeal. Under
the circumstances, after hearing the Ld. DR, it was decided to adjudicate
the issue of condonation of delay, considering the material available on
record.
There was a delay of 781 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal
by the assesse for the reasons mentioned in its application dated: 01/2022
for condonation of delay which is reproduced as under:
3 I.T.A. No. 7/Asr/2022 Nitin Sehgal v. Dy.CIT
4 I.T.A. No. 7/Asr/2022 Nitin Sehgal v. Dy.CIT 5. The Ld. DR has objected to the request of the appellant for
condonation of inordinate delay of 781 days in absence of reasonable
cause and that merely mentioning illness without support of any affidavit
could not per take the reasons or cause which prevented the appellant to
file appeal in the prescribed time limit. He pleaded that the petition of the
appellant may not be admitted on merits.
We have heard the Ld. DR at length, perused the material on record
and condonation application filed by the appellant assesse. The assesse
has merely stated in its application firstly, that he was not aware of any
appeal order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2,
Jalandhar and secondly, that earlier due to his illness as he was suffering
from 'Depression' and he was also under treatment and lying on sick bed at
home, however the facts are not supported either by any medical certificate
or affidavit. In our view, there was no sufficient cause for the aforesaid
inordinate delay of 781 days in filing the appeal. Considering into account
totality of two reasons mentioned by the appellant in this particular case,
the appellant failed to mention in its application or at the date of hearing
once he attended on 16/02/2023, any cogent and satisfactory explanation
for inordinately long delay of 781 days in filing the appeal before the
5 I.T.A. No. 7/Asr/2022 Nitin Sehgal v. Dy.CIT Tribunal, although he has been granted as many as 5 opportunities of
being heard.
On the matter of condonation of inordinate delay of 613 days, the
Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of “Smt.
Shakuntla Thukral vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax [2018] 99
taxmann.com 437, vide para 6 held as under:
The question regarding whether there is sufficient cause or not depends upon each case and primarily is a question of fact to be considered taking into account totality of events which had taken place in a particular case. No cogent and satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the learned counsel for the appellant-assessee even before this court for inordinately long delay of 613 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The explanation furnished by the assessee as noticed in the earlier part of the order does not satisfy the test of sufficient ground as contemplated under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Thus, reliance of the learned counsel for the appellant on judgments of this court in Krishan Lal v. CIT ITA No. 279 of 2016, decided on February 9, 2017 and Harish Kumar Chhabra v. CIT ITA No. 38 of 2012, decided on August 28, 2012, is of no help to him.
Under the provision of Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the
Appellate Tribunal has constraints in exercising the Power of Condonation
of delay in filing appeal where no cogent and satisfactory explanation had
been furnished by assessee for inordinately long delays in filing appeal
before Tribunal.
The question regarding whether there is sufficient cause or not
depends upon each case and primarily is a question of fact to be
considered taking into account totality of events which had taken place in a
6 I.T.A. No. 7/Asr/2022 Nitin Sehgal v. Dy.CIT particular case. In the instant case, there was No cogent and satisfactory
explanation has been furnished by either the appellant or the learned
counsel for the appellant assessee even before this Tribunal for
inordinately long delay of 781 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal
in spite of being given five opportunities of being heard. The explanation
furnished by the assessee in its application for condonation of delay, as
noticed in the earlier part of the order does not satisfy the test of sufficient
ground as contemplated under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Accordingly, application for condonation of delay is rejected and the appeal
would be liable to be dismissed on ground of delay.
Since, the application for condonation of delay of 781 days is
rejected, hence, the grounds rendered academic.
Respectfully, following the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Punjab 11.
& Haryana, the appeal of the assesse is dismissed on ground of delay.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15.05.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr./P.S.* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant
7 I.T.A. No. 7/Asr/2022 Nitin Sehgal v. Dy.CIT (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order