Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1529 - ITAT CHENNAICondonation of delay - reasons for the delay of 1125 days by stating that the assessee received the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on 30.09.2017, which was handed over by her to the auditor - assessee was under the belief that auditor have filed the appeal before the Tribunal in time, though, it was not done so by the auditor, fact of which came to her knowledge at a later point of time - HELD THAT:- Shri. Dhool Chand Varma, FCA appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. AO in the assessment proceedings. From the order of Ld. CIT(A), it is noted that Shri. K. Meenakshi Sundaram, ITP, appeared before the first appellant authority and represented the matter of the assessee in appeal. Even before us, the assessee is represented by Shri K. Meenakshi Sundaram, ITP. These facts show that for attending the proceedings before the authorities below, competent professional engagements were made by the assessee for effective representation of her case at various stages. The general and vague reasons given to explain the delay of more than 3 years by passing the buck on the shoulders of auditor does not speak about the reasonable and responsible approach in handling the matter, wherein the tax demand is involved. With the demand of such an amount remaining outstanding on the part of the tax payer, there is a reasonable expectation of being vigilant and responsible in taking up these matters in a diligent way. The facts so narrated and explained by assessee through the petition for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal do not convince us in order to proceed us to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The facts otherwise noted from the assessment order and the first appellant authority in respect of professional representation before the authorities below do not favour the assessee in order to support the contentions made in the petition for condonation of delay. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for condonation of delay filed by the assessee in the instant appeal. Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
|