9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 2074X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9,73,142/- out of quantum addition and Rs. 5,92,697/- out of penalty amount imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset, while taking us through record, contended that the assessment was framed under section 144 r.w.s. 148 of the Income Tax Act i.e. on the basis of best judgment of the AO. In other words, it is an ex parte assessment order. Similarly, penalty order has also been passed ex parte. The assessee has challenged the assessment order before the ld.CIT(A) but his appeal was time barred by 1099 days. The penalty appeal was filed before the ld.CIT(A) after expiry of 906 days of limitation. He pointed out that both the appeals have been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) on account of bar of limitation. 4. With the above background, the ld.counsel for the assessee prayed that in order to render substantial justice, appeals may kindly be taken up for hearing on this limited issue. The ld.DR has no objection with the prayer of the assessee, if the appeals are being adjudicated. Therefore, after looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to hear the appeals itself instead of stay applications. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ouse of my mother. Due to departmental action of attachment of properties and recovery action I came to know about assessment order and penalty orders were passed in my case. * Against the action of attachment and subsequent action of auction by way of notice in newspaper, I along with my mother filed Special Civil Application before Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. Hon'ble High Court lifted the attachment of properties and bank accounts and ordered to considered the delay in filing an appeal before your honour. Copies of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat is attached herewith as per Annexure 4. * Due to above facts, there is a delay of 1047 days (approx.as correct date of receipt of order is not known to assessee) in filing .appeal for which I pray your honour to condone the same and decide the appeals on merits. I do hereby solemnly confirm that whatever is stated above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. 6. The ld.CIT(A) was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. According to the ld.CIT(A), assessee had appeared before the AO along with his tax consultant and took adjournments. However, thereafter he failed to appear. With regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." 8. Similarly, we would like to make reference to authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (supra). It reads as under: "Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d.CIT(A) for not entertaining explanation of the assessee is that according to the finding recorded by the AO he had appeared before the AO on 14.11.2014, and thereafter did not appear. Therefore, it suggests that the assessee has knowledge of assessment proceedings and he deliberately did not participate in the assessment proceedings. In the second reason, the ld.CIT(A) has observed that demand notice and assessment order were served upon the assessee on 5.1.2015 and not on his father on 31.3.2015. She further observed that Shri A.M. Shah has made a request to the AO for stay of recovery proceedings and this letter was written on 13.9.2016. Thus, there is no plausible reason for not filing the appeal upto 7.2.2018. A perusal of the above circumstances would suggest that no doubt there is some negligence at the end of the assessee for conducting his income tax proceedings. There is no material before us to ascertain whether the assessee has appeared before the AO on 14.11.2014. Similarly, there is nothing to doubt that the assessment order might have not been served upon father of the assessee. Original acknowledge receipt has not been placed on the record. However, considering the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
