TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dition to determining the demand has also referred the matter to prescribed authority for initiation of penalty proceedings against the Assessees. As Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag [ 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT ] wherein it was opined that there is no presumption 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. Therefore, initiation of penalty proceedings has been referred by the AO, it would be in interest of justice that the merits of the assessment orders are tested in the appeals before ITAT rather than the Assessees being deprived of remedy in appeal due to the aforesaid def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 003, to verify the Assessees compliance with the provisions of Chapter XVII (Collection and Recovery of Tax) of the Act. The Assessing Officer ( AO ) thereafter passed separate assessment orders under Section 201(1) read with Section 201(1A) of the Act, all dated 29th March, 2011, calculating the Assessees TDS liability and further referred the matter to the prescribed authority for the purpose of penalty proceedings under Section 271C of the Act. 4. The Assessees preferred their respective appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT(A) ], challenging the assessment orders, inter alia, on the ground that the said assessment orders dated 29th March, 2011, are barred by limitation. The CIT(A) after considering the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016, it came to light that the appeals have not been filed before the ITAT. The Assessees in the aforesaid facts, took steps to file the appeal before the ITAT along with an application for condonation of delay, duly supported with the affidavit of Mr. B.S. Bhatia. He states that the ITAT has dismissed the applications for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeals on the ground of limitation alone. He states that the ITAT failed to appreciate that the facts leading to the delay in filing of the appeals was bonafide and unintentional. He states that the Assessee shall suffer grave prejudice if the delay in filing the appeals is not condoned and if the Assessees are denied of an opportunity to have their matters heard on merits. 7. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s duly recorded in the order passed by the CIT(A). The Assessees have also filed on record the affidavit of Sh. B.S. Bhatia owning up to the fact that the Assessees had instructed filing of the appeal and the non-filing happened due to a human error. In view of his affidavit, it appears that there was a bonafide mistake on the part of the Assessees in pursuing the remedy. 12. In the assessment orders, the AO, in addition to determining the demand has also referred the matter to prescribed authority for initiation of penalty proceedings against the Assessees. In this regard it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag (supra), wherein it was opined that there is no presumption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
