9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Tribunal in time. The assessee is himself responsible for the delay in filing appeal, thus the explanation given by the assessee is not substantiated and the assessee does not have adequate/sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing appeal before us as CAs-centric reasons given are not substantiated - against assessee. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowed the claim bad debts stating that the assessee failed to fulfill the conditions envisaged u/s 36(1) - CIT(A) deleted the levy - Held that:- It is an undisputed fact that the assessee disclosed bad debts in the return filed before the Assessing Authority. The AO disallowed the claim hold that the said debts have not become bad and are not evidenced as irrecoverable debts. This line of argument is not sustainable in law in view of plethora of judgments in force as assessee is no longer under obligation to prove that the debts in question are bad and irrecoverable. Further, there is no bar on the assessee in writing off the bad debts of the year as allowable expenditure when the corresponding credits are showing in the accounts of the year. It is for the businessmen to manage his affairs and accounts in such a w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act before filing the appeal before the CIT (A) on the assessment order of the AO. After granting opportunity to the assessee, CIT (A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal and did not admit the same by relying on the old legal maxim law favours the vigilant . Since the CIT (A) did not admit the appeal, the issue on the merits of the addition of Rs. 14.82 lakhs made on account of bad debts was adjudicated by him. 4. Aggrieved with the non-admission of the appeal as well as the nonadjudication on account of issue of bad debts, assessee filed the present appeal before us. The present appeal is also filed belatedly with the delay of 98 days. At the outset, on the preliminary issue of condonation of delay, Ld Counsel brought our attention to the assessee s letter dated 30.11.2011 i.e. the petition for condonation of delay as well as the affidavit of Shri N.P. Mani, MD of the company. In the said petition. Shri N.P. Mani, Managing Director of the company mentioned that the assessee was ill-advised by the CAs ie M/s. Anil Thakarar Co and M/s. Bharat Co to first exhaust the rectification route u/s 154 of the Act and finally the assessee filed the appeal before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invite avoidable financial hardships to the appellant company. It can be seen from the above that the appellant company was prevented from sufficient / genuine grounds for not filing the present appeal in time and hence your honours are requested to condone the delay of 98 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same. 5. From the above write up, the assessee admits that there is negligence in filing appeal before the CIT(A) and also in filing appeal before the ITAT. Referring to the delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A), assessee has raised the pointing finger against his erstwhile CAs namely M/s Anil Thakarar Co and M/s. K. Bharat Co and mentioned that the negligence is attributable to them. When the same should constitute reasonable cause for admission of the appeal, the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the appeal. Assessee has not filed any affidavit from his erstwhile CAs owning the responsibility of inaction in filing appeals belatedly before the CIT(A). Then, referring to the 98 days delay in filing appeal before the ITAT, assessee repeated the allegation of negligence against his CAs. Neither the petition for condonation for delay nor the affidavit of Sri N.P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the condonation of delay before the CIT(A) and Hon ble Tribunal. There is no dispute on the facts as well as on the issue of existence of negligence in filing appeals in time before the CIT(A) and Tribunal. Core issue which is relevant for adjudication relates to if the said negligence is attributable to the assessee or to the CAs ie M/s. Anil Thakarar Co and M/s. Bharat Co and further, the said negligence constitutes sufficient ground for condoning the delay. 8. In this regard we have perused the available material placed before us. It is an admitted position that the assessee does not have evidence to suggest that the CAs accepted the allegation of negligence. Further, the CAs have not filed an affidavit owning the responsibility of the stated negligence in filing appeal in time before us and also the CIT(A). Similarly, there is no evidence placed before us to suggest that the CAs have given advice to exhaust first the remedy available u/s 154 of the Act. This is not the first year of commencement of business of the assessee that it is not well versed with the Income tax Procedures. In our opinion, the assessee-company is led by a Technocrat is no defense as he has got a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easons given by the assessee are not substantiated and therefore, not sustainable. Hence, the appeal filed belatedly by the assessee should not be admitted. Thus, the preliminary ground raised by the assessee relating to condonation is dismissed. Consequentially, the adjudication of other issues on merits becomes academic and, therefore, dismissed as not admitted. We order accordingly. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not admitted. I.T.A. NO. 3687/M/2011 (By Revenue) 11. This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the CIT (A)-20, Mumbai dated 14.3.2011 for the assessment year 2007-2008. The main issue in this appeal relates to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 4,98,841/-. 12. Briefly stated relevant facts that lead to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) are that the assessee debited an amount of Rs. 16,50,428/- on account of doubtful debts and an amount of Rs. 14,82,000/- is part of the said debit written off against M/s. Magnum Infra Projects P. Ltd. AO disallowed the said claim of deduction stating that the assessee failed to fulfill the conditions envisaged u/s 36(1) of the Act and initiated the penalty by issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
