9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also add here that we do not think it necessary to discuss the merits of the case. Appeal dismissed. - ITA No. 429/Chd/2013 - - - Dated:- 12-4-2016 - SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal Respondent By : Sh. S.K.Mittal ORDER PER H.L.KARWA, VP This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-I, Ludhiana dated 06.06.2011 in confirming the penalty of ₹ 11,13,430/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income at ₹ 2,80,161/- on 31.10.2005. The Assessing officer framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2007 determining the total income at ₹ 58,67,550/-, which included the following major additions:- i) Addition on account of suppressed closing stock - ₹ 28,73,740/- ii) Addition on account of wastage declared - ₹ 15,90,540/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that we have received the defect memo that the appeal is late by 613 days. In this regard, it is submitted that order, dated 6.6.2011 of the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was received by the assesses on 14.06.2011 and, as such, the appeal before the Hon'ble Bench was due to be filed within 60 days i.e. on or before 15.08.2011, but the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time as per detailed facts given in the enclosed affidavit and the actual delay in filing the appeal is of 579 days, instead of 613 days as under:- August, 2011 16 days 1st September 2011 to 30th September, 2012 365 days October, 2012 31 days November, 2012 30 days December, 2012 31 days January, 2013 31 days February,2013 28 days March, 2013 31 days April, 2013 16 days Total 579 days That in v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, 2012 31 days November, 2012 30 days December, 2012 31 days January, 2013 31 days February, 2013 28 days Morch, 2013 31 days April, 2013 16 days Total 579 days 8. That the default of filing the appeal late is on my part and it is highly regretted, but it was only on account of above said factual facts and circumstances as narrated above. Sd/- Deponent Verification:- That the contents of the above affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing is concealed therein Sd/- Deponent. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and have also pursued the materials available on record. At the very outset, we may observe here that the assessee has wrongly calculated the period of delay in filing the appeal. In our opinion, the appeal is late by 613 days. It appears that the assessee has calculated the days from 1.9.2011 to 30.09.3012 as 365 days, whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l passed in quantum appeal of the assessee was received in the month of April 2013 and then he came to know about the appeal u/s 271 (1) (c) for the same year, which could not be filed. Thereafter, the instant appeal was field before the Tribunal. In the instant case, the assessee was required to show that she had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. It is well settled law that in essence, the phrase sufficient cause is not a question of principle, but is a question of fact. Hence, whether to condone the delay, or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case as sufficient cause for condonation of delay depends only on the fact placed by the applicant before the authority concerned. Thus, it is clear that it is required to be taken in the facts of individual case whether the said circumstances constitute a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Thus, the phrase sufficient cause is to be determined upon the facts of each particular case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down. In number of cases, the Courts have held that negligence of an agent of a party is the negligence of the party himself and therefore, cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
