TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1044X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough video conference. The assessee has raised the following grounds in these appeals:- ITA No. 188/JP/2019 (Assessee s ground) 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal of assessee in limine solely for the reason that appeal was filed belatedly. Appellant prays that delay in filing appeal was due to bona fide reasons which were duly explained and thus the delay deserved to be condoned. 1.1 That Ld. CIT(A) further erred in alleging that the assessee had tried to mislead the department by mentioning the date of service of order as 02.02.2017, when the order was served on 25.09.2016. Appellant prays that the date of service of certified order to the assessee was 02.02.2017 as the original order alleged to be served on assessee was in fact never received by the assessee. And further so, there was no question of misleading the department as, the assessee had duly mentioned in form 35 that the appeal as being filed after a delay and also submitted detailed reasons for delay in the appeal memo. Appellant prays that such remarks by Ld.CIT(A) being unreasonable deserve to be rolled back and the delay being genu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved to be condoned. 1.1 That Ld. CIT(A) further erred in alleging that the assessee had tried to mislead the department by mentioning the date of service of order as 02.02.2017, when the penalty order was served on 25.09.2016. Appellant prays that the date of service of certified order to the assessee was 02.02.2017 as the original order alleged to be served on assessee was in fact never received by the assessee. And further so, there was no question of misleading the department as, the assessee had duly mentioned in form 35 that the appeal as being filed after a delay and also submitted detailed reasons for delay in the appeal memo. Appellant prays that such remarks by Ld.CIT(A) being unreasonable deserve to be rolled back and the delay being genuine deserve to be condoned. 2. That on fact and in circumstances of the case Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty imposed by Id. AO, when the notice u/s 274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) was issued without specifying the limb under which penalty was sought to be levied. This being against the provisions of law and in violation to well- settled prepositions of various judicial pronouncements. Appellant prays that the penalty order deserves to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve deceases and he was complete bed rest since July 2015 to January 2017. He was not at business premises and he was not aware about delivery of order and could not receive assessment order from Income Tax Department. Therefore, it is true facts that he did not receive assessment order for the AY 2008-09 from income tax department. During the treatment of the assessee, whole family members were in tension about survive of the assessee and they were also not aware about income tax assessment order. The assessee was having only one son and he was doing care of the assessee with the help of doctor and by consulting with various doctors. Family of the assessee were in tension when the assessee suffered paralysis attack and they were praying to god for assessee's survival. Please find attached herewith medical certificate of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma, Medical Officer of Samudayik Sawasthya Kendra, Jamawaramgarh, Jaipur and MRI Brain Report of Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital and Medical Report of Vaibhav Imaging Centre. After getting treatment from hospital, the assessee visited to income Tax office and he came to know that assessment order and demand notice have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be served at the working placed of the assessee but not to the assessee in person and further the assessee has explained the cause of delay as he was suffering from various diseases and had an attack of paralysis and under treatment for long time. Therefore, at the time of considering the sufficient cause of delay a lenient view ought to have been taken. The Coordinate Bench this Tribunal while considering the issue of condonation of delay which was declined by the ld. CIT(A) in assessee s own case arising from the penalty levied U/s 271(1)(b) of the Act vide order dated 23.04.2019 in ITA No. 1289 1290/JP/2018 has held in para 3 and 4 are as under:- 3. There was delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). By the impugned order the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals on the ground of delay. Before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee submitted the following submissions:- The appellant was suffering with various diseases including BP, Sugar and paralysis attack since July 2015 and he was under doctor treatment of above disease and was on bed rest so he could not received personally notices, order from the department. It may be possible that department was sent the notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
