TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd again, held that when merits and technicalities pitted against each other, then merit alone deserves to be prevailed, because, if you throw out a meritorious case out of judicial scrutiny on the grounds of technicalities, then you may deprive the right of the petitioner in pursuing their case. Various Courts have held that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties, they are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly, within the time bound prescribed under the Act. 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. 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, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 56(2)(vii)(b) are not invocable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. For that without prejudice to the above, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that no addition can be made in the hands of the appellant since the entire consideration for the property purchased during the impugned assessment year was paid by the appellant's husband. PRAYER For these grounds and such other grounds that may be adduced before or during the hearing of the appeal, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to (a) Quash the order passed u/s.263 and / or (b) Pass such other orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit. 3. At the outset, we find that the appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 581 days, for which, a petition for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal along with Affidavit explaining the reasons for delay, has been filed by the assessee. The Ld.AR for the assessee referring to petition filed by the assessee submitted that, the PCIT, Chennai-1, passed order u/s.263 of the Act, on 20.11.2018 and the said order of the PCIT was received by the assessee on 29.11.2018. The assessee could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e IT. Act. Before the PCIT, Shri Chandanmal Jain, CA has appeared for hearing. It is seen from the assessment order that the same Shri Chandanmal Jain, CA only appeared before Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. The PCIT had passed a speaking order vide dated 20.11.2018 by setting aside the assessment order u/s.263 of the I. T. Act with a direction to redo the assessment. The appellant did not prefer any appeal against the 263 order within the statutory time limit prescribed in the Income Tax Act. Upon receipt of the 263 order, the AO had passed the order giving effect to the 263 order on 19-12-2019. Against this order, the assessee had filed appeal before the CIT(A) 05-02-2020. 2. Delay in filing appeal and affidavit for condonation of delay: The appellant filed appeal against the 263 order before Hon'ble [TAT on 25-08- 2020 with a delay of 581 days. This delay was beyond the statutory time limit of filing of appeal prescribe in IT Act. On perusal of that affidavit filed by the appellant, it is noticed that the appellant tried to give some vague excuses for the delay and prayed for condonation of delay on account of those reasons. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g multiple CAs. 9. Her ignorance of law and procedure in filing appeal mentioned in her affidavit is not appears to be true and genuine .. 10.In this connection the latest order of Jurisdictional ITAT 'A' Bench, Chennai pronounced on 23.5.2022 in the case of Smt. Jumma Khan Pathar Nisha in ITA No. 983/Chny/2020 is relied upon. 11.The Hon'ble ITAT observed in that case that the appellant engaged a CA before the assessment proceedings and she had engaged one ITP before the first appellate authority and she had engaged same ITP before Hon'ble ITAT. The ITAT observed that the appellant had engaged competent professionals before the authorities for effective representation of her case at various stages. Hence, the general and vague reasons given by the appellant for delay in filing appeal was not found acceptable. The Hon'ble ITAT also held that rules of limitations are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly . Accordingly, the delay was not condoned by the ITAT and the appeal was dismissed. 12.In the said decision the appellant engaged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of delay, the assessee claimed that she was not aware of law that an appeal can be filed against the order of the PCIT u/s.263 of the Act, and further, an advice from the Counsel, Mr.T.Banusekar, CA, she came to know that there is a provision to file appeal against the revision order and 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing their case. At the same time, various Courts have held that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties, they are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly, within the time bound prescribed under the Act. Further, 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
