Smt. Sunitaben K. Shah, Valsad v. The ACIT., Cent.Circle-4,, Ahmedabad

ITA 1888/AHD/2006 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 188820514 RSA 2006
Assessee PAN ACIPS0799H
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1888/AHD/2006
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Sunitaben K. Shah, Valsad
Respondent The ACIT., Cent.Circle-4,, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 12-03-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 12-03-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 04-03-2010
Next Hearing Date 04-03-2010
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 25-08-2006
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JM AND N. S. SAINI AM) ITA NO.1888 AND 1889/AHD/2006 A. Y.: 2003-04 AND 2004-05 SMT. SUNITABEN K. SHAH PROP. OF CHANDHI DEVELOPERS AMAR CHAMBERS STATION ROAD VALSAD PA NO. ACIPS 0799H VS THE A. C. I. T. CIRCLE-4 SURAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI C. K. MISHRA DR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: BOTH THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)-II AHMEDABAD DATED 17-05-2006 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-0 5. BOTH THE APPEALS WERE EARLIER DISMISSED IN DEFAULT OF THE AS SESSEE. THE SAME WERE RESTORED WHILE ALLOWING MISC. APPLICATIONS OF THE A SSESSEE. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE. APPEALS ARE HEARD IN ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ACCORDING TO OFFICE BOTH THE APPEALS ARE TIME BA RED BY 21 DAYS. ACCORDING TO COLUMN 9 IN THE APPEAL PAPERS THE DAT E OF COMMUNICATION OF THE ORDERS APPEALED AGAINST IS MENTIONED AS 05-0 6-2006; WHEREAS THE APPEALS ARE FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNAL ON 25-08-2006. THE ASSESSEE FILED AFFIDAVIT TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN FI LING THE APPEALS AND IT IS STATED IN PARA 2 OF THE AFFIDAVIT THAT ITA NO.1888 AND 1889/AHD/2006 SMT. SUNITABEN K. SHAH PROP. CHANDI DEVELOPERS 2 THE ACCOUNTANT MISS. ARPITA CHAUHAN WHO WAS LOOKIN G AFTER TAXATION MATTER LEFT ABRUPTLY IN THE MONTH OF SEPTE MBER 2006 AND THE APPEAL ORDERS ETC. WERE KEPT BY HER IN SOME FILES AND AS SOON AS IT CAME TO MY KNOWLEDGE THE APPEALS WAS FILED. 4. THE LEARNED DR OBJECTED TO THE CONDONATION OF DE LAY IN THE MATTER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO SUFFICIENT C AUSE IN NOT PRESENTING THE APPEALS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITA TION. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE REASONS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSE E WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE ANY SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS. THE ASSESSEE ON MER IT HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION BUT NOTHING FURTHER IS EXPLAINED WITH RE GARD TO CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION EXCEPT WHATEVER IS STATED IN AFFIDAVIT. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON REC ORD AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DR. ACCOR DING TO SECTION 253 (5) OF THE IT ACT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY ADMIT AN APPEAL AFTER EXPIRY OF THE RELEVANT PERIOD IF IT IS SATISFIED THAT THERE W AS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATI ON. SUFFICIENT CAUSE WOULD MEAN A CAUSE WHICH IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF T HE ASSESSEE. SUFFICIENT CAUSE MEANS WHICH PREVENTS A REASONABLE MAN OF ORDINARY PRUDENCE TO ACT UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES WITHOUT NEGLIGENCE OR INACTION OR WANT OF BONA FIDE. THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AS QUOTED ABOVE A RE CLEARLY FALSE AND AFTERTHOUGHT. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY WAS COMMUNICA TED OF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ON 05-06-2006 AND APPEALS ARE FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNAL ON 25-08-2006. AS PER EXPLANATION OF THE A SSESSEE ACCOUNTANT LEFT IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2006. PRIOR TO LEAVI NG OF THE ACCOUNTANT IN SEPTEMBER 2006 ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY FILED APPEA LS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 25-08-2006. IT WOULD MEAN THAT APPEAL P APERS AND IMPUGNED ORDERS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. T HEREFORE LEAVING OF ITA NO.1888 AND 1889/AHD/2006 SMT. SUNITABEN K. SHAH PROP. CHANDI DEVELOPERS 3 THE ACCOUNTANT IN SEPTEMBER 2006 HAS NO CO-RELATION WITH NON-FILING OF THE APPEALS WITHIN TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THUS THE ABOVE REASONS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE AS S UFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATI ON. IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REFER TO SOME OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOU NCEMENTS ON THE ISSUE OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS. IN THE CASE OF HIND DEVELOPMENT CORPN. VS. ITO (1979) 118 ITR 873 THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HELD THAT A TRIBUNAL CAN CONDONE THE DELAY IF THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPEAL. IN THE CASE OF VEDABHAI A LIAS VIJAYANATABAI BABURAO PATIL VS. SHANTARAM BABURAO PATIL (2002) 25 3 ITR 798 (SC) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT WHILE EXERCISING DISCRETION UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT 1963 TO CONDONE DELAY FOR SUFFICIE NT CAUSE IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED COURTS SHO ULD ADOPT A PRAGMATIC APPROACH. A DISTINCTION MUST BE MADE BETW EEN A CASE WHERE THE DELAY IS INORDINATE AND A CASE WHERE DELAY IS O F A FEW DAYS. THE COURT OBSERVED THAT WHEREAS IN THE FORMER CONSIDERATION O F PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER SIDE WILL BE RELEVANT FACTOR AND CALLS FOR A MORE CAUTIOUS APPROACH. IN THE LATTER CASE NO SUCH CONSIDERATION MAY ARISE AND SUCH A CASE DESERVES A LIBERAL APPROACH. NOW IN THE PRESENT CAS E DELAY IS NOT OF A FEW DAYS BUT OF MORE THAN 20 DAYS. BESIDES THERE IS AB SOLUTELY NO VALID EXPLANATION/REASON FOR THE DELAY. IN THE CASE OF CI T V. RAM MOHAN KABRA (2002) 257 ITR 773 THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARY ANA HIGH COURT HAS HELD AND OBSERVED THAT WHERE THE LEGISLATURE SP ELLS OUT A PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND PROVIDES FOR POWER TO CONDONE THE DE LAY AS WELL SUCH DELAY CAN ONLY BE CONDONED ONLY FOR SUFFICIENT AND GOOD REASONS SUPPORTED BY COGENT AND PROPER EVIDENCE. IT IS A SE TTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE SPECIFIED PERIOD OF LIMITATION MUST BE APPLIED WITH THEIR RIGOUR AND EFFECTIVE CONSEQUENCE S. IN THIS CASE DELAY FOR FILING THE APPEAL LATE FOR ONLY A FEW DAYS WAS NOT CONDONED. IN THE CASE OF ASSTT. CIT V. TAGGAS INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT LTD. (2002) 80 ITD ITA NO.1888 AND 1889/AHD/2006 SMT. SUNITABEN K. SHAH PROP. CHANDI DEVELOPERS 4 21 (CAL) TRIBUNAL CALCUTTA BENCH CALCUTTA DID N OT CONDONE THE DELAY FOR FILING THE APPEAL LATE BY 13 DAYS BECAUSE THE D ELAY WAS NOT DUE TO SUFFICIENT CAUSE. 6. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND RELYING UP ON THE JUDGMENTS WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPL AIN THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS DUE TO SUFFICIENT CAUSE. WE THEREFO RE TREAT BOTH THE APPEALS AS TIME BARRED. SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMIS SED BEING TIME BARRED. 7. AS A RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AR E DISMISSED AS TIME BARRED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 12-03-2010 SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 12-03-2010 LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD