9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of the same were sufficient to show that the assessee had acted bonafide under the advice from his consultants and there was no negligence nor any deliberate or intentional act on his part to delay in filing of appeals, we are of the view that there was a sufficient cause for the delay on the part of the assessee in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A) for all the three years under consideration. We, therefore, condone the said delay and remit the matter back to the ld. CIT(A) for disposing of the appeals of the assessee for all the three years under consideration on merit in accordance with law after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. Nos. 1213, 1214 And 1215/KOL/2019 - - - Dated:- 17-7-2019 - Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ) And Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D.R ORDER PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ) :- These three appeals filed by the assessee are directed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se to the show-cause notices issued during the course of the said proceedings, the Assessing Officer imposed the penalty of ₹ 1,31,286/-, ₹ 32,421/- and ₹ 63,753/- under section 271(1)(c) for A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12 respectively. 4. The penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer for A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12 was challenged by the assessee in the appeals filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals). There was, however, a delay of 1131 days on the part of the assessee in filing the said appeals for A.Y. 2009-10 2010-11 and 560 days in filing the appeal for A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee also filed applications seeking condonation of the said delay. The ld. CIT(Appeals), however, did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine by treating the same as barred by limitation for the following reasons given in paragraph no. 4 of his impugned order, which are identical for all the three years under consideration:- 4. I have perused the grounds of appeal, statement of facts, penalty order and the submissions made by the appellant. The appellant did not bring any satisfactory explanation with regard to the su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttached herewith for your kind perusal. 3. The appellant has no other option than to appoint new AR and have the consultation with few Tax Consultants and finally approached the Advocate Dilip Kumar Agarwal. In this process 47 days were lost. 4. The Advocate Dilip Kumar Agarwal advised that due to merits of case, the appellant had a good chance of getting a favourable order in appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is filed with condonation of delay of 1131 days on 07.11.2018. Again a total of 21 days need for opinion of ld. Advocate, 20 days for supply of papers as required by the ld. Advocate and 29 days required for preparation and filing of appeal with delay condonation for 1131 days (863+119+32+47+21+20+29). 5. The appellant had reposed implicit faith in his advocate Shri Nripati Ranjan Chakraborty and Chartered Accountant Sri Swapan Bhawal and simply proceeded on the presumption that they must have taken appropriate action/properly advised. However, the appellant was wrongly advised (explained in detail above). Therefore, for such wrong action the part of the concerned ld. Advocate and Chartered Accountant, the appellant shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat due to merits of case, the appellant had a good chance of getting a favourable order in appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is filed with condonation of delay of 1131 days on 07.11.2018. Again a total of 21 days need for opinion of ld. Advocate, 20 days for supply of papers as required by the ld. Advocate and 29 days required for preparation and filing of appeal with delay condonation for 1131 days (863+119+32+47+21+20+29). 5. The appellant had reposed implicit faith in his advocate Shri Nripati Ranjan Chakraborty and Chartered Accountant Sri Swapan Bhawal and simply proceeded on the presumption that they must have taken appropriate action/properly advised. However, the appellant was wrongly advised (explained in detail above). Therefore, for such wrong action the part of the concerned ld. Advocate and Chartered Accountant, the appellant should not be made to suffer. 6. The appellant has sufficiently explained the delay of each day without suppressing any fact. Under the above premises, it is requested that the delay in filing the instant appeal may kindly be condoned, else there will be irreparable injuries and loss to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
