TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai-1, Madurai, dated 31.03.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2014-15 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ Act in short]. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 449 days delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the form of an affidavit, the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay, wherein, following submissions were made: 1. That I am competent to swear to this affidavit. 2. That I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the appeal of Senthil Murugan Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. filed before the Hon ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai for the assessment year 2014-15. 3. That the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai dated 31.03.2019 passed u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was received by us on 24.04.2019. 4. That in order to give effect to the directions of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, the Assessing Officer passed an order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.263 dated 31.12.2019. 5. That an appeal was filed by the company before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the office of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal only on 14.09.2020. 15. That hence the appeal was filed on 14.09.2020 with a delay of 449 days. I further affirm that the above stated facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Chartered Accountant of the assessee company has not advised the assessee to file the appeal. For that effect, the C.A. filed an affidavit dated 29.10.2022. Since, there is reasonable cause for the delay, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for condoning the delay by relying upon the judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji Ors. 167 ITR 471. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that the assessee is a private limited company, well acquainted with Income Tax Act and procedures and they ought to have filed the appeal in time and submitted that the delay should not be condoned. He has relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Preeti Madhok v. ITO in I.T.A. No. 752/Chny/2019 dated 17.06.2022. 5. We have heard both the sides, perused the condonation pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d thus, she took decision to file appeal, which caused delay of 581 days. We have gone through the Affidavit filed by the assessee and also examined sequence of events and after considering necessary facts, we are of the considered view that the reasons given by the assessee in her Affidavit is not bona fide, because, the assessee has very well represented her case through an Authorized Representative before the AO and also before the PCIT during revisional proceedings. She had been represented by Mr. Chandanmal Jain, CA, before the Income Tax Officer. During the course of revision proceedings, she had also engaged the same CA to appear before the PCIT under 263 proceedings. Therefore, we are of the considered view that when she was capable of engaging a professional for appearing before two different authorities at two different points of time, it is impossible to believe her version that she was not aware of filing of the appeal against 263 order within the due date prescribed under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. We further noted that in her petition, she claimed, she met Mr. T. Banusekar, CA, to seek his services for representing the case before the CIT(A) in connection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, in a case, where, for the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, the appeal could not be filed, then the Courts are well equipped with power to condone the delay, if the petitioner explains the delay in filing of the appeal with a reasonable cause. However, there is no law or mandate in the Act, to condone the delay in each and every case. But, it depends upon all facts of each case and the reasons given by the parties for condonation of delay. Therefore, one has to go by the facts of its own case and the reasons given by the petitioner for condonation of delay. In this case, on perusal of reasons given by the assessee for delay in filing of the appeal, we find that although it appears, the assessee is not deriving any benefit by not filing the appeal within the due date prescribed under the Act, but, from the contents of petition filed by the assessee, we could easily make out a case that the assessee has made an afterthought to file the appeal against the order of the PCIT u/s.263 of the Act, only when she did not get a favourable order from the AO, consequent to the order passed by the PCIT u/s.263 of the Act. Therefore, in our considered view, for these vague reasons, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
