9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 917X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lear that his state of mind is perfect and he is taking treatment for his ill-health therefore, he must also aware that there was an assessment order and appeal also to be filed. After careful reading of the remand report and also detailed order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the assessee was away from the family for 10 years is not believable. For the condonation of the delay, the assessee has to show that there must be a sufficient cause to condone the delay. In this case, the assessee himself decided as per his affidavit not to go to his house knowingly that there must be an assessment order. No one is prevented the assessee to go to his house therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no sufficient cause to condone delay. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. - ITA Nos. 2608, 2609, 2610, 2611, 2612, 2613, 2614 , 2615/Chny/2019 - - - Dated:- 24-9-2021 - V. Durga Rao, Member (J) And G. Manjunatha, Member (A) For the Appellant : B. Ramakrishnan, FCA For the Respondents : G. Johnson, Addl. CIT ORDER Per V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member These eight appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders of the learned Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was suffering from High Blood pressure. Sugar and Joint pain since 20.01.2002 and he was taking ayurvedic treatment at Government Hospital Tuticorin as a outpatient. Further, Dr. Muralidharan BAMS., has stated that the assessee visited his clinic several times for ayurvedic treatment from 20.01.2002 to 28.08.2010 as outpatient (Copy of sworn statement recorded from Dr. Muralidharan BAMS submitted). In support of his statement Dr. Muralidharan BAMS., has submitted a copy of OP register extract and a copy of prescription for having taken treatment by Shri C. Jegaveerapandian (Copy submitted). Regarding the assessee's stay in an isolated place for the past 10 years, this office inspector was deputed to enquire about the genuineness of the claim. On meeting the assessee in person the assessee has stated that he was away in mental depression due to the financial crisis and stayed away from his family at different addresses. However, when assessee was asked to file evidence for staying at different isolated places for so many years he could not produce any evidence. (Copy of ITI submitted) When asked about the receipt of assessment orders, the assessee stated that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1996-97 12.03.2003 Not Filed Fifed on 19.03.03 Yes 1.32 2S.03.04 10.03 . 03 06.01.04 26.02.04 1997-98 12.03.2003 Not Filed Filed on 19.03.03 Yes 3.00 25.03.04 10.03.03 06.01.04 26.02.04 1998-99 06.05.2003 Not Filed Not fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30.12.04 07.12.05 2002-03 06.05.2003 Not Filed Not Filed 17.09.04 No 2.28 do 01.10.04 30.12.04 07.12.05 6.2 From the above table, it is clear that in response to the findings made during the course of survey on 11.07.2001, several instances of concealment of income were detected and therefore, notices u/s. 148 were issued for all the eight assessment years in the month ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pto 26.02.2004, almost upto 2 years from the date of survey. 6.4. It has also been submitted in the affidavit that the appellant was not present in his residence and did not receive any assessment orders and notices issued by the Assessing Officer, but he later stated that orders and notices had been received by his son and wife. This averment is again blatantly false because was available when the notices u/s. 148/143(2) and 142(1) were issued in 2003 he was attending the assessment proceedings. His averments are completely contrary to the recorded facts in the assessment order. Dr. Muralidharan, BAMS has stated in his sworn statement that the appellant was under his ayurvedic treatment at the Government Hospital, Tuticorin between 20.01.2002 to 28.08.2010. As he attended before the Assessing Officer upto 26.02.2004, at least during the period from 20.01.2002 to 26.02.2004 he must have stayed at his residence which is in the same town as the location of the Government hospital. 6.5. Dr. Muralidharan, BAMS, at Government hospital, Tuticorin has stated that he had been giving ayurvedic treatment to the appellant from 20.01.2002 to 28.08.2010 as outpatient. In support of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Tuticorin finally the ITCP-1 was issued on 09.03.2016, as a consequence of which, there was clear danger of attachment and auction of the properties owned by the appellant. From the overall factual canvass arising out of the recorded facts in the assessment order, findings of the Assessing Officer during the course of remand proceedings, it is clear that the averments made in the affidavit by the appellant are false and has been given to mis-lead the higher appellate forum and is guilty of mis-conduct under the law. In view of the above discussion it is clear that the appellant was not prevented by a sufficient cause. From the facts available on record in the assessment orders and recorded during the course of remand proceedings, it is established that it was due to total negligence and disregard to the provisions to the Income tax Act, the appellant chose not to file the appeals within the statutory time allowed to him. Based on the background documents as discussed above, it is clear that the appellant has not been able to prove with any documentary evidence that he was prevented by any sufficient cause to explain the delay in filing the appeals. The appellant was not only negl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e orders of the authorities below. The A.O. has passed the assessment order on 25.03.2004. When the A.O. has issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee only filed income-tax return in respect of three Assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97 1997-98 for remaining five years i.e., 1998-99 to 2002-03 he has chosen not to file a return. The assessee along with Chartered Accountant appeared before the A.O. on 19.03.2003, 18.10.2004, 26.02.2004 in respect of three Assessment Years 1995-96, 1996-97 1997-98. The remaining five Assessment Years, the assessee has not responded, ultimately the A.O. has passed assessment orders on 25.03.2004. From the above, it is clear that the assessee knows that there are proceedings pending before the A.O. for which he has appeared already along with his C.A. and also other assessment years pending before the A.O. Under these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee knowingly not to choose file an appeal in time before the Ld. CIT(A). Apart from that the assessee filed an affidavit before the ITAT, wherein he has stated in paragraph-I that he is away from family since 11.07.2001, which is factually not correct because the assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
