9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I.T.A.No.515/Bang/2011 - - - Dated:- 5-6-2012 - SHRI. N. BARATHVAJA SANKAR, AND SHRI. N. V. VASUDEVAN, JJ. Appellant by : Shri. Balram R. Rao, Advocate Respondent by : Shri. Naresh Saka, JCIT O R D E R PER SHRI. N. BARATHVAJA SANKAR, VICE PRESIDENT : This is an appeal preferred by the assessee, Shri. T. Krishnamurthy Naidu of Bangalore, for the assessment year 2004-05, against the appellate order of the CIT(A)-I, Bangalore, dated.08.03.2011. There is a delay of 60 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the CIT(A). Before the first appellate authority the assessee submitted as under : I wish to state that I have filed an appeal, on 14.05.2009 challenging the order of the ld.ITO, Ward 1(4), Bangalore, pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te authority did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as not admitted. Aggrieved the assessee is on appeal before us. 02.The relevant grounds of appeal read as under : i) The learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the delay in filing the appeal challenging the penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was due to genuine reason that the appellant s mother was suffering from acute diabetes Mellitus and hyper tension due to which the appellant was obliged to take care of his mother. Consequently, the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay. ii) The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant was the only son (no other children for their parents) and consequently was obliged to take care of hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee, Shri. Balram Rao, Advocate, reiterated the same reasons as stated before the CIT(A) and pleaded that the CIT(A) ought to have accepted the reasons submitted for the delay and ought to have dealt with the grounds on merit. 04. Per contra, the learned DR reiterated the contents of the CIT(A) s order as his submissions. 05. We have heard the rival submissions and considered the facts and materials on record. This is an appeal against the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty levied was Rs.2,98,650/-. It is seen from the records that though the assessee has taken the grounds on merits of the levy of penalty before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) did not go into the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
