M/s. Priceton Realtors Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1255/DEL/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 125520114 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AADCP5167B
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 1255/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 10 month(s)
Appellant M/s. Priceton Realtors Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi
Respondent ITO, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 02-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted F
Tribunal Order Date 02-02-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 08-07-2014
Next Hearing Date 08-07-2014
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 02-04-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI I.P. BANSAL JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1255/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S PRINCETON REALTORS PVT. LTD. A-283 DEFENCE COLONY NEW DELHI 110 024. PAN : AADCP5167B VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14 (4) NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI H.K. LAL SR. DR ORDER PER : I.P. BANSAL JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS DI RECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) DATED 7 TH NOVEMBER 2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. GROUND S OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ACT ION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT APPRECIATING THE E NTRY FOR PURCHASE OF FLATS AND THE CONSEQUENT CREDIT IN THE NAME OF SELLER AND TREATING THE SAME AS INCORRECT IN NOT AP PRECIATING THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE ACCOUNTING ERROR WHICH LE AD TO THE PASSING OF THE ENTRY AND FURTHER ERRED IN ADDING T O TAXABLE INCOME A SUM OF RS.69 05 250/-. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER OR AME ND THE GROUND OF APPEAL AT A LATER STAGE. ITA NO.1255/DEL/2009 2 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED ON 23 RD NOVEMBER 2009 AND THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED TO 2 ND FEBRUARY 2010 AT THE REQUEST OF ASSESSEES COUNSE L. BOTH THE PARTIES WERE INFORMED IN THE OPEN COURT REGARDING T HE ADJOURNED DATE. 3. HOWEVER ON 2 ND FEBRUARY 2010 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE WE PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THIS AP PEAL EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 4. IT WAS OBSERVED FROM THE FILE THAT THE APPEAL HA S BEEN BELATEDLY FILED BY 79 DAYS. WITH THE APPEAL AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATI ON OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED IN WHICH THE REASON FOR LATE FILING HAS BEEN STATED AS UNDER:- THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON 14 TH NOVEMBER 2008. THAT THEREAFTER DUE TO CLERICAL MISTAKE ON ACCOUNT OF CL OSURE OF COMPANYS BUSINESS ON ACCOUNT OF SLOW DONE IN THE E CONOMY AND CONSEQUENT NON CONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER OF CIT (A ) AT THE RELEVANT TIME THUS RESULTING IN A DELAY IN FILING OF THE AP PEAL. THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAPSE HAS PUT THE COMPANY IN AN ADVE RSE SITUATION. THIS DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL WILL CAUSE HARDS HIP AND ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES AND THEREFORE THE APPEAL IS BEING FILE D NOW. THIS DELAY HAS NOT BEEN DUE TO ANY MALA FIDE ON PAR T OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY BUT DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND T HE CONTROL OF THE APPELLANT. 5. FOR CONTENDING THAT SUCH DELAY IS CONDONABLE RE LIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CAS E OF KERALA LAND ACQUISITION VS. KATIJI & OTHERS 1987 28 EXCISE LAW TIMES 185 (SC) TO CONTEND THAT FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE GOVERNS THE ISSUE OF CONDONATIO N OF DELAY:- I) ORDINARILY THE LITIGANT DOES NOT GAIN ANYTHING B Y LODGING AN APPEAL LATE; II) REFUSAL TO CONDONE DELAY COULD RESULT IN MERITO RIOUS MATTERS THROWN OUT AT THE VERY THRESHOLD AND IT WOULD CAUSE JUSTIC E BEING DENIED WHILE CONDONATION OF DELAY WOULD MERELY PERMIT A CAUSE TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS; ITA NO.1255/DEL/2009 3 III) THE REASONABLE AND PRAGMATIC APPROACH IS NECES SARY IN THE MATTER AND WHERE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDE RATION ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER THE CAUSE OF A SUBSTANTIAL JUST ICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERRED; IV) THE OPPOSITE PARTY CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE A VESTE D RIGHT IN JUSTICE BEING DONE; V) THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION OF DELAY BEING DELIBERAT E ON ACCOUNT OF CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE OR MALAFIDES; VI) FINALLY IT MUST BE GRASPED THAT JUDICIARY IS R ESPECTED NOT ON ACCOUNT OF ITS POWER TO LEGALISE INJUSTICE ON TECHNICAL GROUND S BUT BECAUSE IT IS CAPABLE OF REMOVING INJUSTICE AND IS EXPECTED TO DO SO. 6. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. DR THAT DELAY IN THE PRE SENT CASE SHOULD NOT BE CONDONED. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THOUGH IT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPLICATION THAT THERE IS CLERICAL MISTAKES ON ACCOUNT OF CLOSURE OF COMPANYS BUSINESS ON ACCOUNT OF SLOW DOWN IN THE ECONOMY BU T THE SAID CONTENTION IS NOT FOUND SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT WH O IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH DELAY. THUS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IF ASSESSEE IS NOT VIGILANT ABOUT HIS RIGHT THEN DELAY SHOULD NOT BE CONDONED. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. DR AND THE CONTENTS OF APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THOUGH IN THE APPLICATION IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT DELAY IS ON ACCOUNT OF CLERICAL MIST AKE BUT NO MATERIAL WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTIO N THAT HOW THAT CLERICAL MISTAKE OCCURRED WHICH RESULTED IN DELAY. THE APPE AL IS STATUTORY RIGHT AND EVEN IF CONDONATION OF DELAY IS SOUGHT THAT SHOULD BE SU PPORTED BY SOME REASON WHICH CAN BE SUBSTANTIATED. IN THE PRESENT CASE NO SUPPO RTING EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER IS FILED TO SHOW THAT DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS O N ACCOUNT OF REASONABLE CAUSE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION WE SEE NO REASON TO CONDONE THE DELAY. THEREFORE WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL BY DECLINING TO CONDONE THE DELAY. ITA NO.1255/DEL/2009 4 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. . THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02.02.201 0. SD/- SD/- [G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA] [I.P. BANSAL] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 02.02.2010. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES