Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 314 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay – delay of 2984 days – Whether the explanations furnished by the assessee can be considered as "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay or not - Held that:- The assessee has claimed that he was following the advices given by his C.A firm - it is imperative to examine the claim on the basis of facts available on record - the assessee has also filed separate appeals before CIT(A) against the assessment orders passed for AY 1994-95 and 1996-97 - it is inconceivable that a CA would have advised the assessee to wait for outcome of a past appeal to decide about the course of action to be taken for the years under consideration - under the principle of 'Doctrine of Merger', an assessment order would merge with the order of CIT(A) in respect of the issues decided by the first appellate authority and hence the question of rectification of assessment orders of both the years under consideration on the impugned issues, after receipt of first appellate orders, would not arise at all. The C.A. firm would have given the letter as well as the affidavit only to accommodate the assessee herein - the conduct of the C.A. firm not only denigrates its name/reputation, but also badly affects the high standards, confidence, quality, prestige, reputation etc. enjoyed by the C.A. profession - the assessee is having connection with many tax professionals and, in all probabilities, the assessee might have had consultation with any one or more of them on the problem – the C.A firm might have given the affidavit only to accommodate the assessee, which conduct is also not expected from a Professional - If it is considered that the C.A firm has colluded with the assessee for giving such kind of affidavit, then it only warrants disciplinary action against them - Even, if it is considered that the said C.A. firm has really given such advices, then also it may require disciplinary action against them for giving such kind of advices, without proper verification of facts and without proper consideration of law - strict actions and fast disposal of disciplinary proceedings would not only instill discipline among the C.A fraternity, but also help curtail these kind of undesired practices adopted by some of the Chartered Accountants. The assessee has failed to show that there was sufficient cause for the substantial delay occurred in filing these appeals. we have particularly noticed that an experienced C.A firm could not have given such kind of wrong/ absurd advice on the facts prevailing in the instant case - even if it is considered that his C.A firm has given such an advice, it is not believable that a prudent man would not have cross verified the same or applied his mind over it - the conduct of the assessee is beyond the comprehension of human conduct and probabilities - the assessee has failed to show the reasons for entire period of delay, i.e., no reason has been for the delay that occurred in between periods – thus, no credence could be given to the letter and affidavit furnished by the Chartered Accountant and hence they will not come to the help of the assessee - the affidavit given by the assessee is also liable to be rejected – Decided against assessee.
|