9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with their rigor and effective consequences. In this case, delay for filing the appeal late for only a few days was not condoned. Assessee failed to explain that delay in filing the appeals was due to sufficient cause. CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal of assessee by holding them to be time barred. No interference is required in the matter. Appeals of assessee are dismissed. - ITA.Nos.6554 And 6553/Del./2018 - - - Dated:- 2-5-2019 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri B.L. Gupta, Income Tax Practitioner. For the Revenue : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R. ORDER Both the appeals by the same assessee are directed against the common Orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that inspite of clear cut instructions from assessee, the Counsel for Assessee who has vast experience of profession in his field, has not cared to file the appeal on time. The explanation of assessee was not accepted. The Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, dismissed both the appeals as time barred. 4. Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that application for condonation of delay was supported by affidavit of Shri Rajesh Sharma, C.A. He has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) should have taken a pragmatic view while condoning the delay in the matter and on technical matter the appeals should not be dismissed being time barred, when assessee has a merited case. In support of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar is the position for A.Y. 2010-2011 in which the assessee similarly did not file any details of the expenses. Therefore, statutory reference was made for valuation of fair market of the cost of construction and addition was accordingly made. It is, therefore, clear that before the A.O. assessee did not lead any evidence in support of the contention raised before A.O. It would, therefore, make it clear that when nothing was adduced before A.O. and addition was made on the basis of difference in valuation as per statutory valuation obtained by A.O. under section 142A(1) of the I.T. Act, perhaps the assessee never wanted to challenge the additions before the Ld. CIT(A). It, therefore, appears that whatever explanation have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has also not been explained during the course of arguments. The assessee, thus, failed to explain any bonafide reason on their part for seeking condonation of delay in the matter. Thus, the assessee acted negligently and never acted bonafidely in the matter. It would be appropriate to refer to some of the judicial pronouncements on the issue of delay in filing the appeals. 6.1. In the case of Hind Development Corpn. v. ITO [1979] 118 ITR 873, the Calcutta High Court held that a Tribunal can condone the delay if there was sufficient cause for the delay in the submission of the appeal. In the case of Vedabai alias Vijayanatabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798 (SC), where it was held that while exerc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
