TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elope is also available on record. Fully agree with these observations of the CIT that there are no sufficient reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal almost after one and half years. It is well settled that the phase "sufficient cause" is not a question of principle, but is a question of fact. Hence, whether to condone the delay or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case as "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay depends only on the fact placed by the applicant / appellant before the authority concerned. In the instant case, the facts are crystal clear. There is no evidence on record to show that there was diligence on the part of assessee/appellant. Furthermore, party guilty of negligence can not ask for condonation of inordinate delay of about 554 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 1172/Chd/2013 - - - Dated:- 22-6-2015 - Shri H. L. Karwa, VP, J. For the Petitioner : Shri H R Saldi For the Respondent : Shri R K Gupta ORDER Per H. L. Karwa, VP This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A), Patiala, dt. 25/10/2013 relating to Assessment Year 2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The AO stated that on 16/12/2009 Sh. S.C. Satija Advocate Ld. Counsel for the assessee appeared but books of accounts and other information called for were not produced and the AO has adjourned the hearing of the case for 24/12/2009 and directed the assessee's counsel to produce the books of account, confirmation of unsecured loans and details of household expenses and sources thereof. The AO observed that none attended on 24/12/2009 nor any adjournment was sought. Consequently the AO completed the assessment exparte under section 144 of the Act vide his order dt. 24/12/2009. In the assessment order dt. 24/12/2009, the AO made certain additions / disallowances. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As per the Income Tax Act, the limitation prescribed for filing appeal against the order of AO before the CIT(A) is 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. As per assessment record, assessment order alongwith demand notice/ penalty notice were sent to the assessee by registered post on 31/12/2009. However, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 08/08/2011. Thus, there was a delay of 554 days in fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement of Facts reads as under: Statements of Facts 1. That the Ld. A.O. has framed the assessment Ex-Parte without giving reasonable opportunity. He has framed the assessment at a very high figure and no notice was served and no assessment order was also served. Now the appellant had applied for obtaining the assessment order so framed and received the copy of order today the 5th day of August, 2011, as such appeal is filed now. 7. From the above it is clear that the assessee contended that neither the demand notice nor the assessment order was served upon him. The assessee further stated that he had applied for a certified copy of the assessment order so framed and received the same on 05/08/2011; and thereafter filed an appeal on 08/08/2011. Hence there is no delay in filing the appeal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(A). As per the directions of this bench, Ld. DR produced the records of CIT(A) Patiala concerning the assessee. Ld DR submitted that Shri. S.C. Satija, Advocate the ld. Counsel for the assessee attended the proceedings before the AO as per order sheet entry dt. 08/10/2009, 22/10/2009 and 16/12/2009. On 16/12/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2011, i.e., almost after 18 months from the date of passing of assessment order. Ld. DR submitted that as per the assessment records, assessment order alongwith demand notice were forwarded to the assessee by registered post on 31/12/2009. Photocopy of receipt from Postal Authorities is available in the records of CIT(A). The registered letter was received back with remarks from the Postal Authorities refused to receive . The photocopy of the envelope is also available in the file of CIT(A). Ld. DR vehemently argued that the assessee was guilty of negligence and there is inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). He further submitted that in granting indulgence and condoning the delay the appellate authority must be satisfied that there had been diligence on the part of the appellant and the latter was not guilty of negligence whatsoever. 9. In rejoinder Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no assessment order was served upon the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly held that demand notice was served on 31/12/2009, where as no demand notice or assessment order was served by registered post on 31/12/2009 and the assessee never refused to accept the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PAN No. ALZPS8540B Sub: Appellate Proceedings-Asstt. Year 2007-08. Sir, The appellant in the written submission dated 07.11. 2012 and dated 26.09.2013 had claimed that no proof of service of notice u/s 143(2), which was shown to have been issued on 29.09.2008, is filed and further no proof has been filed that it has been served before 30.09.2008. As such all subsequent proceedings are liable to be annulled as service of notice u/s 143(2) is not be a procedural irregularity, and the same is not curable and therefore the requirement of service of notice u/s 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. Thus the assessment is liable to be annulled. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- Mohinder Singh 12. The assessee also submitted written submissions before the CIT(A) on 07/11/2012 and the address of the assessee is mentioned as under: Mohinder Singh Vill. Ambey Majra G.T. Road, Sirhind Side Mandi Gobindgarh PAN No. ALZPS8540B It is also observed that as per Vakalatnama submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) the address of the assessee is as under: Vakalatnama / Power of Attorney Before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the assessee. From the records, it is clear that the assessment order alongwith demand notice were sent by registered post on 31/12/2009 (photocopy of receipt from Postal Authorities is available on record). There is no dispute that the registered letter was received back with remarks from the Postal Authorities refused to receive . Photocopy of envelope is also available on record. I fully agree with these observations of the CIT that there are no sufficient reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal almost after one and half years. It is well settled that the phase sufficient cause is not a question of principle, but is a question of fact. Hence, whether to condone the delay or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case as sufficient cause for condonation of delay depends only on the fact placed by the applicant / appellant before the authority concerned. In the instant case, the facts are crystal clear. There is no evidence on record to show that there was diligence on the part of assessee/appellant. Furthermore, party guilty of negligence can not ask for condonation of inordinate delay of about 554 days in filing the appeal before the CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
