TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case, we are unable to condone the huge delay of 312 days in filing the present Appeal. - Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. No. 1802/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 11-4-2017 - SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER FOR THE ASSESSEE : SH. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, ADV. AND SH. SOMIL AGRAWAL, ADVS FOR THE REVENUE : MRS. PARAMITA TRIPATHY, CIT(DR) ORDER This appeal is filed by assessee against the Order dated 24.3.2015 passed by the Ld. CIT(Central), New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The grounds raised read as under:- 1. That having regard to facts circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT has erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction U/S 263 and has further erre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the facts and circumstances of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 5. That the appellant craves the leave to add, amend, modify, delete any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 3. Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience. 4. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee has reiterated the contentions raised in the Application for condonation of delay and the Affidavit and he requested that the delay of 312 days is not intentional and is bonafide and due to ignorance of law on the part of the assessee. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3) which was revised u/s. 263 vide order dated 24.3.2015. Appeal against this order has been preferred by the assesse on 6.4.2016 with delay of 312 days. Pursuant to the direction given in order u/s. 263, assessment order was passed u/s. 143(3)/263 dated 15.3.2016, against which assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), Rohtak on 8.4.2016. When the assessee contacted Dr. Rakesh Gutpa for filing appeal against order u/s. 143(3)/263, assessee came to know on the advice of Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate that assesse should have filed an appeal before Hon ble Tribunal against the order u/s. 263 also, as the order u/s. 263 can be challenged before Hon ble Tribunal only. Accordingly, appeal was filed before Hon ble Tribunal on 6.4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally before DCIT, Faridabad and assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) on 25-10-2012. 5. That the above said assessment was found erroneous by CIT, Gurgaon u/s 263 vide order date 24-03-2015. 6. That during the revision proceeding, I accompanied with Shri Naman Sharma Advocate but after the order was passed, I was not advised by him that any remedy lies against such order passed before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. All that was advised by him was that once assessment order would be passed pursuant to such order u/s 263, we would have remedy by way of appeal before CIT(A). 7. That I being non technical person believed him in good faith and when after the assessment order was again passed pursuant to the direction given in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12 days as well as averments made in the Affidavit of the Partner of the Assessee Firm. We are of the considered view that assessee has not given any plausible reasons for condoning the huge delay of 312 days in the said Application and Affidavit. Assesse has also not filed any evidence as per the averments made by the assessee in the Application for condonation of delay. We find considerable cogency in the contentions raised by the Ld. CIT(DR) that before the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee was represented by a qualified/Competent Advocate, hence, the question of ignorance of law and bonafide belief does not arise. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are unable to condone the huge delay of 312 days ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
