The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai held that for the condonation of the delay, the assessee has to show that there must be a sufficient cause to condone the delay.On hearing the appeal filed by Mr. C. Jegaveerapandian, the quorum consisting V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and G. Manjunatha, (Accountant Member) affirmed that a delay of eight and half years can’t be considered. And the decision of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)is correct in not condoning the delay.
In this case assessee is an individual a survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the business premises of M/s. JVP Associates and other sister concerns on 11.07.2001. During the course of survey, some documents evidencing business transactions of the assessee were found. Based on the documents found in the survey, the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act and after following the due procedure, an assessment was completed. Assessment orders were passed relevant to the Assessment Years 1995-1996 to 2002-2003 respectively
Aggrieved by these assessment orders, theassessee filed an appeal on 21.09.2012 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) along withthe delay condonation petition for 8 ½ years. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee byrejecting the delay condonation petition filed by him vide order dated19.12.2013.Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), the assesseecarried the matter before the Tribunal.
Mr. B. Ramakrishnan learned counsel for the appellant argued that, the appellant has led an
isolated life outside due to mental depression and financial crisis and during this period he was living at the house of his friends and relatives at Thiruppur and Alwarthirunagiri. It is also clear from the sworn statement of Dr. Muralidharan, BAMS, that he was attending ayurvedic treatment at the Government hospital at Tuticorin from 20.01.2002 to 28.08.2010. this is a sufficient cause for condoning delay.
Mr. G. Johnson (Departmental Representative) haspointed out that as per affidavit filed by the assessee for condonation ofdelay, the assessee stated that immediately after survey i.e., on11.07.2001 he is away from the family leading an isolated life, which isnot correct for the reason that the assessee himself appeared beforethe Assessing Officer on 06.01.2004 and 26.02.2004 and therefore, the avermentsmade in the affidavit are false, theassessee having participated in assessment proceedings, he ought tohave aware that the A.O must have passed assessment order. Havingknown to the fact that there must be an assessment order the assesseehimself decided not to go to his house for the reason that he does notwant to receive the order of the A.O. It is also a fact that the assesseeis consulting the Doctor regularly to take treatment for his ill-health. It also submitted that there is no sufficient cause preventedthe assessee to go to his house to collect the assessment order and filean appeal.
The tribunal on dismissing the appeal held that the appellant has failed to prove that there were reasons beyond his control whichprevented him from filing the appeal within the statutory time allowed to him. The appellant was not only negligent but had complete disregard to the law which led to a delay of 8 ½ years. In this case, the assessee himself decided as per his affidavit not to go to his house knowingly that there must be an assessment order. No one is prevented the assessee to go to his house therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no sufficient cause to condone delay.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
