TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 984X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the present appeal by the assessee does not merit to be condoned. In case, if the delay is condoned based on an unsubstantiated claim in the case of the present assessee who had not even participated in the proceedings before the A.O. and the CIT(Appeals), then, it would send a wrong message and would lay down a wrong precedent for others to follow. Thus we are unable to persuade myself to condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal by the assessee appellant, who as observed by me hereinabove had consistently as a matter of habit evaded his participation in the proceedings before both the lower authorities and also delayed the filing of the present appeal without any justifiable reason. Thus we decline to condone the delay involved in filing of the appeal before ITAT. Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. - Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA For the Revenue : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 05.12.2023, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and situated within the municipal limit of Janjgir, Dist. Jangir (C.G.) for a sale consideration of Rs. 5,50,000/-. The A.O. further observed that the segment rate of the aforesaid piece of land sold by the assessee was adopted by the stamp valuation authority at Rs. 16,73,300/-. 3. Acting upon the aforesaid information, the A.O. observed that the assessee in his return of income for the subject year had not disclosed any long-term capital gain (LTCG)/short-term capital gain (STCG) on the transfer of the aforesaid land. The A.O. considering the aforesaid facts reopened the case of the assessee u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 03.01.2020 was issued to the assessee. In compliance, the assessee filed his return of income for the subject year on 28.04.2020 declaring an income of Rs. 10,64,010/-. 4. As the assessee had failed to participate in the course of assessment proceedings and had responded only on the last occasion when the case was fixed for hearing on 06.09.2021, and that too for seeking an adjournment, therefore, the A.O was constrained to proceed with and frame the assessment to the best of his judgment u/s. 144 of the Act. 5. The A.O., while framing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved in filing the present appeal, but also his conduct before both the lower authorities who in the absence of any participation/compliance by the assessee in course of proceedings before them were constrained to pass ex-parte orders, revealed the complete disregard of the process of law by the assessee appellant. It was, thus, submitted by the Ld. D.R. that as not only the assessee had any justifiable reason to explain the delay involved in filing the present appeal, but also his conduct before both the lower authorities revealed his complete disregard for the process of law, therefore, the appeal having been filed for no justifiable reason beyond the prescribed period did not merit admission and was liable to be dismissed as non-maintainable. 10. At the threshold I may observe that the appeal of the assessee involves a delay of 17 days. As the delay involved in filing the present appeal was not inordinate I was initially of the view that the same merits to be condoned. However, the reasons narrated by the assessee in his application seeking condonation of the delay involved in the filing of the appeal, read in the backdrop of his lackadaisical approach before the lower authoritie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Agrawal, the Ld. A.R. on being called upon to substantiate the assessee s claim that the delay in filing the appeal had crept in because the assessee was taken unwell on 30.01.2024, failed to place on record any material in support thereof. The Ld. AR rather relied on the following judicial pronouncements: (a) Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) Vs. ACIT (2019) taxmann.com 134 (SC) (b) Smt. Samanthapudi Lavanya Vs. ITO, ITA No.704 to 727 (Viz)/2019, 73 to 75 (Viz)/2020 dated 27.04.2021. (c) Pepperazzi Hospitality (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO, ITA No.448/Ahd/2020 dated 08.04.2022 (d) Sandhya Mallick Vs. ITO (2022) 220 TTJ 403 (CTK-Trib) (e) Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Roa Vs. DCIT (2020) 120 taxmann.com 427 (f) Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst Katiji (1987) 167 471 (SC) 14. I shall now deal with the judgments/orders as had been pressed into service by the Ld.AR in his attempt to support his contention that the delay involved in filing of the appeal be condoned, as under: (A) Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) Vs. ACIT (2019) taxmann.com 134 (SC) In the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court the revenue had not refuted the claim of the assessee raised that it had no knowledge of the passing of the order by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) was duly served upon the assessee and was well within his knowledge. It was, thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts wherein the bonafide of the assessee was neither in any clout of doubt nor refuted by the department that the delay involved in filing the appeal was condoned by the Tribunal. However, in the present case before me, I am afraid that not only the explanation of the assessee that the delay in filing the appeal had occasioned due to his ill health is not supported by any evidence proving the same, but rather his non-cooperative conduct before the lower authorities does not inspire any confidence as regards the veracity of the reason given by him to explain the delay involved. In fact, Ld. D.R. had objected to the seeking of condonation of delay by the assessee on the ground that the same had occasioned due to a lackadaisical approach adopted by the assessee. (D) Sandhya Mallick Vs. ITO (2022) 220 TTJ 403 (CTK-Trib) The Tribunal in the aforesaid case before them, had observed that the appeal before them was delayed by the assessee due to inaction on the part of his counsel. The Tribunal had observed that the assessee had learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1987) 167 471 (SC) Apropos the reliance placed by the Ld. AR on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others (supra), the same being distinguishable on facts as against those involved in the captioned appeal before me, thus, would not assist his case. The Hon'ble Apex Court, stressing upon considering a sufficient cause by the Courts, while deciding as to whether the delay involved in the filing of the appeal merits to be condoned, had observed that the said term employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice which is the life purpose of existence of the institution of courts. At the same time, the Hon'ble Apex Court had, while observing that the courts should do even-handed justice on merits in preference to the approach that scuttles a decision on merits, had inter alia, held that an appeal or any application may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment proceedings before the A.O nor appeared before the CIT(Appeals), had approved the declining of his application for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the Hon ble High Court are culled out as under: 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. From perusal of the documents available on record, it transpires that as per the information obtained from the Annual Information Return, it was observed by the AO that though the assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 34,67,700/- in his savings bank account during the year under consideration but had not filed his return of income. As the assessee failed to come forth with any explanation as regards the source of the aforesaid cash deposits, the AO reopened his case under Section 147 of the Act. During the course of the assessment proceedings, though the AO had issued several notices to the assessee but he did not comply with the same. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act dated 16.12.2018, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 34,67,700/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether documentary or otherwise to substantiate his claim that the A.O had erred in treating the cash deposit of Rs. 34,67,700/- in his bank account as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act, thus, upheld the order passed by the AO under Sections 144/147 of the Act, dated 16.12.2018. 12. In the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the conduct of the assessee remains the same as was there before the learned CIT(A) and the A.O. The appeal filed by the assessee before the learned ITAT involves a delay of 166 days. On a careful perusal of the facts leading to the delay in filing of the present appeal, the reason that the bonafides of the reasons leading to the delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee cannot be gathered from the application filed by the assessee seeking condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. The facts that can be gathered from the aforesaid application of the assessee are, viz. (i) the assessment order was passed by the A.O on 16.12.2018 and was issued on 29.12.2018 without any reasons for keeping the same with him; (ii) reasons recorded under Section 148(2) of the Act were not supplied to the assessee by the A.O; and (iii) appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cy to reasonableness. The action which can be condoned by the Court should fall within the realm of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. However, as the assessee appellant in the present case is habitually acting in defiance of law, where he had not only delayed in filing of the present appeal but also had adopted a lackadaisical approach and not participated in the course of the proceedings before the CIT(A), therefore, there can be no reason to allow his application and condone the substantial delay of 166 days involved in preferring of the captioned appeal. Now, when in the present appeal the appellant / assessee had failed to come forth with any good and sufficient reason that would justify condonation of the substantial delay involved in preferring of the captioned appeal, we hereby dismiss the present appeal upholding the reasons assigned by the learned ITAT. 16. Resultantly, this appeal stands dismissed. Also, the Hon ble High Court of Chattisgarh in its order passed in the case of M/s BPS Infrastructure Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Raipur, Tax Case No, 87 of 2024, dated 12.04.2024, after relying on the judgments of the Hon ble Apex Court in State Of West Bengal Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
