TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 986X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the same clearly smacks of the lackadaisical conduct on his part. In the totality of the facts leading to the delay in filing of the appeal read with the conduct of the assessee appellant before the AO and the CIT(Appeals), the request of the assessee for condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal does not merit acceptance. As rightly relied on by the ITAT that in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Administrator, Howrah [ 1971 (12) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT] had held that the expression sufficient cause should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, particularly when there is no motive behind the delay. The expression sufficient cause will always have relevancy 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 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e proceedings, the appellant failed to explain the nature and source of cash deposited to the tune of Rs. 34,67,700/- in the Savings Bank Account. The order of the CIT(A) was further challenged before the learned ITAT which also stood dismissed on 13.02.2024 on the ground that the said appeal was barred by 166 days. 4. Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case was re-opened and in assessment made on 16.12.2018 under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, total income was determined at Rs. 34,67,700/- treating amount of cash deposit of in bank account as deemed income under section 69A of the Act. The first appeal filed under Section 246A was dismissed on the grounds of non-compliance and it appears that the notices under Section 250 and order of learned CIT(A) were uploaded on appellant's ITBA e-filing portal and he came to know about this only on 02.11.2023 while randomly checking the portal. The second appeal before learned ITAT was filed on 10.11.2023 along with application for condonation of delay of 166 days along with affidavit. The learned ITAT has dismissed the appeal on grounds of delay without considering the fact that the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any is not expected keep the e-portal open all the time so as to have knowledge of departments actions. Further, in Shakti Steel Trading v. The Asstt. Commissioner (ST) WP No.4122 4255 4256 in GST matters, which are analogous to IT matters, the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that it is advisable for the Department to serve notice on such assessee through other mode of communications prescribed when they failed to respond to the summons, orders, notices and other communications through e-mail. There has to be some amount of flexibility. Rigidity in administration of tax in such matters may not serve the purpose and can be counter productive. Mr. Sinha further relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji Others, {(1987) 167 ITR 471}, Sandhya Rani Sarkar v. Sudha Rani Debi {1978 AIR 537}, Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax {(2019) 419 ITR 732 SC}, decision of the Karnataka High Court in Karnataka Forest Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Circle 11(3), Bangalore {2010 (8) TMI 1134} and the decision rendered by the ITAT in The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o lie low and neither participate in the assessment proceedings nor furnished any reply to the notices that were issued to him, thus, was constrained to treat the cash deposits of Rs.34,67,700/-(supra) as the assessee's unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act, and framed the best judgment assessment vide his order under Sections 144/147 of the Act vide its order dated 16.12.2018. Even before the CIT(Appeals), the conduct of the assessee was no better than that he had adopted during the assessment proceedings. Although the CIT(Appeals) afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessee to put up his case on merits before him but he had once again adopted an evasive approach and on no occasion, participated in the proceedings before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) has given proper opportunity to the assessee to participate in the hearing. Four notices were issued to the assessee informing the assessee about the date of hearing but the assessee did not participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A). The CIT(Appeals) taking notice of the fact that the assessee had adopted an evasive approach and, despite being well informed, had not only chosen not to participate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same, when read in the backdrop of his conduct before the authorities below cannot be summarily accepted on the very face of it. There is no substance in the claim of the assessee that the delay involved in filing of the appeal was due to bonafide reasons, as the same clearly smacks of the lackadaisical conduct on his part. In the totality of the facts leading to the delay in filing of the appeal read with the conduct of the assessee appellant before the AO and the CIT(Appeals), the request of the assessee for condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal does not merit acceptance. 14. The learned ITAT, vide paragraph 12 has observed that In fact, if I condone the delay involved in the present case where the assessee had not even participated in the proceedings either before the A.O or CIT (Appeals), then, it would send a wrong message and would lay down a wrong precedent for the times to come. ... 15. As has been rightly relied on by the learned ITAT that in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Administrator, Howrah, reported in 1972 AIR SC 749, the Hon ble Apex Court had held that the expression sufficient cause should receive a liberal construction so as to advance subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
