TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 580
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled by the company condoning delay. 2. Ld CIT (A) further erred in not allowing the appellant's claim for bad debts at Rs. 14,82,000/-." 3. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income declaring income of Rs. 9,82,390/- and the same was scrutinised u/s 143(3) of the Act determining the assessed income at Rs. 25,06,745/- vide order dated 23.12.2009. Aggrieved with the increase in assessment, Assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (A) and it was filed belatedly on 12.1.2011. While adjudicating the said appeal of the assessee, CIT (A) mentioned that the assessee waited till the rectification application u/s 154 of the Act was dismissed by the CIT (A) on 17.8.2010 and thereafter lapse of 4 months, assessee filed the regular appeal against the order of the AO on 12.1.2011. Thus, while the assessment order was dated 23.12.2009, the appeal against the said assessment order was filed only on 12.1.2011 i.e. with a gap of 13 months. The reason given for the delay is said to be the wrong advice of Chartered Accountants (CAs) who said to have suggested that the assessee needs to exhaust the remedy available u/s 154 of the Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd was also not considered by the learned CIT (A). Copy of the said affidavit is enclosed to this petition. The said order of the learned CIT (A) was received by the appellant company on 9th July, 2011. Copy of the said order was sent to the erstwhile CA of the appellant company for necessary action on their part. However, they did not take any action on the matter for the reasons known to them.............. On realizing the fact that its erstwhile CA are not taking any corrective steps in this regard the appellant company approached its present CA M/s. R.R. Lingsur & Associates, being represented Mr. Ramakrishna R. Lingsur. On advice received from its present CA, the appellant company is performing this appeal before your honours. The only point of grievance in the said appeal is non-allowance of claim of bad debts by the AO. The appellant company is otherwise having case on merits but due to negligence on the part of its erstwhile CA, it could not submit the appeal in time. It is carefully submitted that for wrong advice and negligence of its erstwhile CA, appellant company should not be denied the justice which otherwis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he delay of 98 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same. 6. On the other hand, Ld DR for the Revenue narrated the facts leading delay of more than one year in filing the appeal before the CIT (A) and the delay of 98 days before the Tribunal and mentioned that the assessee is given the right of appeal and said right has not been availed admittedly due to negligence. Allegation of negligence of the CAs are not substantiated by the assessee and in such circumstances, it is merely a case of conveniently shifting the responsibility of filing appeal in time to the CAs. He also mentioned that the CAs have not concurred with the allegation of the assessee. Where there is no affidavit atleast from his erstwhile CAs, in alternative, the assessee should be held responsible for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no case for condonation of delay either by the CIT(A) or Tribunal. Ld DR also mentioned that it is a case of repeated delay and the assessee is a habitual defaulter of legal procedures and he does not deserve lenient approach the Tribunal. 7. We have heard both the parties, perused the order of the Revenue and considered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal. The case of the assessee's Counsel before is that M/s Anil Thakarar & Co and M/s. K. Bharat & Co ie erstwhile CAs have continued to be negligent till M/s. R.R. Lingsur & Associates got into the job of filing appeals. In response to the query from the Bench regarding the duties and vigilant approach of the assessee, Ld Counsel has nothing to comment. In our opinion, the assessee is not transparent. It is not known why the assessee continued to rely on the CAs, who are declared negligent as evident from the experience with the appeal before CIT (A). In the condonation petition before the CIT(A), the assessee alleged that M/s Anil Thakarar & Co and M/s. K. Bharat & Co are negligent. In that case, why the assessee continued to depend on such negligent CAs or why assessee failed to pursue with the same CAs to file the present appeal before the Tribunal in time. Is not the assessee responsible for the delay in filing appeal? In our opinion, the answer is affirmative and is against the assessee. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion, the explanation given by the assessee is not substantiated and the assessee does not have adequate/sufficient ground for condonation of dela....