Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 730 - AT - Income TaxValidity of Best judgement assessment u/s 144 - argument of non affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant - HELD THAT - We find ourselves in agreement and concur with the finding of the CIT(A) and hold that the assessee admittedly did not participate in the proceedings before the AO either fairly or completely. However, while so holding we are also live to the submissions of the assessee in as much as for want of proper representation/shortcomings etc. by a duly appointed Representative the assessee should not be made to suffer. It is seen that ld. CIT(A) noticing that the submission was unsupported by an Affidavit of the AR appointed has dismissed the bald argument. Considering the same, we hold that while the First Appellate Authority was justified to dismiss the bald plea, at the same time, being live to the practical difficulties of the assessee also in obtaining such an affidavit from its counsel, we deem it appropriate presently to dispense with such a requirement. We would like to make it clear that the assessees, even though it is a government authority cannot be permitted to abuse the process of law. Bald unsupported excuses of blaming its AR without first satisfying the adjudicating authority that all necessary details for compliances were always provided to the counsel is a requirement which cannot be summarily overlooked. It is obvious that a counsel can make representation on behalf of an assessee only if all details are made available by the assessee to its C.A./counsel. Infact ideally an affidavit to the said extent would be the foremost primary fact on which we would first insist to be demonstrated. We are of the firm view that the responsibility of the assessee does not end by merely appointing a Counsel. The assessee necessarily needs to ensure and make available all necessary informations to its counsel for enabling him to participate effectively in the hearing. However, in view of the peculiar facts of the present case, considering the oral undertaking given we do not insist on an affidavit of the assessee. Having expressed our displeasure on the lax attitude evident on record, accepting the oral undertaking given, we deem it appropriate to direct a remand. At the same time at this stage we deem it necessary to highlight that a Government Corporation is like any other assessee before the tax authority and cannot be allowed to plead that on this count it be given a preferential treatment and be allowed to escape the responsibilities of representing their case before the other governmental authorities including the tax authorities. The rigors of non-compliances with the requirements of the Statute are same for all assessees. We make it clear that merely because the assessee is a Government authority, it itself is no reason for the authority to act in an irresponsible and negligent manner. Accordingly, with the said observations, the issue is restored back to the Assessing Officer. Said order was pronounced in the Open Court in the presence of the parties. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Remand of the case back to the Assessing Officer (AO) or the Commissioner Appeals (CIT(A)). Condonation of Delay: The appeal challenged the order dated 28.03.2019 of CIT(A) Shimla for the 2013-14 assessment year. The Registry pointed out a 4-day delay in filing the appeal. The assessee sought condonation, citing timely document submission and possible postal delays. The Senior DR did not oppose the condonation. The Tribunal, satisfied with the explanation, condoned the delay, noting no undue advantage gained by the assessee. The delay was deemed condoned. Remand of the Case: The assessee requested a remand back to the AO due to the assessment order passed under section 144, emphasizing the need for consideration of necessary facts. The AO had provided ample opportunities to the assessee, leading to the assessment order under section 144 due to unsubstantiated claims. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to cooperate. The AR acknowledged the opportunities provided but argued ineffective representation by the appointed counsel. The Tribunal, while noting the lack of participation by the assessee, dispensed with the requirement of an affidavit from the earlier counsel. Emphasizing the responsibility of the assessee to provide necessary information to its counsel, the Tribunal directed a remand to the AO. It highlighted that a Government Corporation must not evade responsibilities and must prioritize participation in proceedings before tax authorities. The issue was restored back to the Assessing Officer, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes. The order was pronounced on 24th May, 2022. This comprehensive analysis covers the issues of condonation of delay and remand of the case, providing detailed insights into the Tribunal's decision-making process and considerations.
|