9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal, 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) against the order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.263 on 14.01.2020. 6. That during the second week of March 2020, we approached Shri T. Banusekar, Chartered Accountant through our authorized representatives M/s. B. Thiagarajan & Co., Chartered Accountants, Chennai to seek his services for representing the company before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in connection with the appeal filed by the company against the order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.263 by the Assessing Officer. 7. That during the course of discussions, Shri T. Banusekar, Chartered Accountant enquired about the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax u/s.263 and that whether any appeal was filed against the said order to whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 petition filed in the form of affidavit and case law relied upon by both the parties. Admittedly, the assessee has filed its appeal with a delay of 449 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit, wherein it was stated that the C.A. of the assessee company has not advised the assessee to file an appeal. The C.A. has also filed an affidavit stating that he has not advised the assessee to file an appeal against the order passed by the ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act. After examining the entire affidavit, we find that the assessee has not asked its C.A. whether to file an appeal or not. When the assessee asked the opinion of the C.A., then the C.A. has to advise as to whether an appeal has to be filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 with the appeal filed by the assessee against the order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.263 of the Act. Therefore, from the above, what is clear is that she is an educated person, aware of Income Tax proceedings, including filing of the appeal against the order of the AO. Further, from the contents of the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay, what we could understand is that the assessee has chosen not to file the appeal against the order of the PCIT u/s.263 of the Act, because, she can pursue an alternative remedy available with her and represent her case before the AO on the belief that she can get a favourable order from the AO. Once, the assessment order passed by the AO, went against the assessee, then she consulted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 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, such huge delay of 581 days in filing of the appeal, cannot be condoned. 7. As regards, the case law relied upon by the assessee in the case of Mr.Imam Syed Abdul Kamal Nazar v. ITO in ITA No.190/Chny/2021 dated 02.06.2022, as we have already stated in earlier part of this order, condonation of delay, has to be examined based on facts of each case. However, it does not depend upon observations of any Court or Tribunal in some other case. Although, in the case law referred by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, the Tribunal has condoned the delay of 486 days in filing of the appeal, but the said findings of the Tribunal is based on facts of those case and as per the facts of the above case, the assessee himself had represented ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
