TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 175
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ling these appeals and explained the reason that the assessee has not at all received the order of the CIT(A). He came to know about the order of the CIT(A) only on receipt of complaint filed before the Economic Offence Court, Hyderabad on 5.8.2012. It is also submitted that the Managing Director of the assessee-company Sri Bathina Veerabhadra Rao was suffering from acute depression, mental instability, hyper tension and diabetes. He has undergone treatment in Hyderabad from 20.8.2004 to January 2008 and also at Visakhapatnam from January 2008 onwards till date and he is not remembering the date of receipt of order of the CIT(A). He has written letter to the CIT(A) to furnish the certified copy of the orders on 9.8.2012 and received them on 29.8.2012. Accordingly, appeals are filed before the Tribunal on 29.8.2012 on the basis of certified copies. He filed a petition for condoning the delay in filing the appeals. He has placed reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. M.S.T. Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471). He also filed a doctor certificate dated 14.8.2012 from Dr G.V.S. Murthy and also from Dr. A Sekhar Reddy, dated 15.8.2012 and pra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on redirected address on 6.11.2002 - Revenue authorities held that notice having been sent by speed post on 30-10-2002, it must be presumed to have been received by assessee on 31-10-2002 and, thus, there was valid service of notice within time prescribed - Whether there is no presumption under law that any notice sent by speed post must have been served upon assessee within 24 hours - Held, yes - Whether when Assessing Officer was neither sure nor specific as to when notice in question had been served upon assessee and there was nothing on record to show at whose instance, notice was redirected, it could be said that notice under section 143(2) had been served upon assessee within prescribed period - Held, no" 3. In the case of Ketan V Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, 12010] 7 taxmann.com 88 ( Mum). Section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Service of notice - General - Assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08 - Whether substituted service of notice by affixture is only a last resort when Court or other authorities is satisfied that service cannot be effected through ordinary mode/method - Held. yes - Whether without exhausting other ordinary mode of services, serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not proper service. Even otherwise, the assessee sought the condonation of delay by explaining the reasons that he did not come to know about the assessment order and the copy of the assessment order was served subsequently. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the service of the assessment order was claimed to have been effected through affixation, the assessee had explained and disclosed the sufficient reason for not filing the appeals within the period of limitation. Thus, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in not condoning the delay of 92 days which was properly explained. The Commissioner (Appeals) had not doubted the explanation of the assessee being false or vague but turned down the same on the ground that it was only on account of negligence on the part of the assessee. Since the service was not on the person and was not in the presence of the assessee, therefore, it could not lead to the conclusion that the assessee did not come to know about the assessment order because of the negligence. [Para 6] It is settled law that while condoning the delay, the court should take a lenient view. It is always a question whether the explanation and r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s discretion in favour of the assessee in view of the adequate alternative remedy they had." 5. The High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. Vins Overseas India Ltd. (305 ITR 320) held that: "In terms of section 27 of the General Clauses Act, if a notice is properly addressed and despatched through registered post, there is presumption that it has been served upon the assessee. The assessee was right in contending that the presumption was rebuttable, but on the facts of the instant case, the assessee had not been able to rebut the presumption. " 3. The learned AR submitted that in the present case the order was not served, therefore, there is no delay in the present case and mere dispatch by Speed Post cannot be presumed to have been served properly. He submitted that u/s. 282 of the Act, a notice or requisition may be served on a person either by post or as if a summons were issued by a court under the CPC, 1908. The Code prescribes for mode, procedure and manner of service of notices. The object and purpose of service of notice or summons is to inform and intimate the addressee about the proceedings and the date of hearing. If the notice is served or received by the party ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....26(3) - 12/7/2005. Served on Sri Bathina Veerabhadra Rao. 9. 04/10/2005 Receipt of order u/s. 271(1)(c) dated 30.9.05-Served on assessee. 10. 11/11/2005 Filing of appeals before CIT(A) 11. 22/05/2006 Order of CIT(A) u/s. 250 dated 21.3.2006 for A.Y. 2002-03 (served through ITO, Ward-1(1) as per directions in CIT(A) letter dated 11.5.2006) - Served on assessee. 12. 18/12/2006 Order of CIT(A) u/s. 250 dated 11.10.2006 13. 22/05/2006 Order u/s. 154 dated 12/5/2006 of ITO Ward-1(1) 5. Being so, she submitted that it is to be considered as served and now the assessee is making false story to suppress the material facts. Further, she submitted that the assessee is not an individual to suffer on medical ground. The assessee is a public limited company managed by a board of directors. If the managing director is not in a proper state of mind how the company can be run and a person of instable mind cannot be a Managing Director for such a long period from August 2004 to August 2012. Further, she submitted that even if it is presumed that he is sick, the assessee has to prove that he has not carried out any other work and taking rest ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6. 24/06/2005 Notice u/s. 221(1) served on Sri Bathina Veerabhadra Rao 7. 07/07/2005 Reply to notice u/s. 271(1)(c) by on Sri Bathina Veerabhadra Rao 8. 18/07/2005 Copy of notice u/s. 226(3) - 12/7/2005 9. 04/10/2005 Receipt of order u/s. 271(1)(c) dated 30.9.2005 by Sri Bathina Veerabhadra Rao 10. 11/11/2005 Filing of appeals before CIT(A) 11. 22/05/2006 Order of CIT(A) u/s. 250 dated 21.3.2006 for A.Y. 2002- 03 (served through ITO, Ward-1(1) as per directions in CIT(A) letter dated 11.5.2006) - Served on the assessee received by Sri Bathina Veerabhadra Rao. 12. 18/12/2006 Order of CIT(A) u/s. 250 dated 11.10.2006 13. 22/05/2006 Order u/s. 154 dated 12/5/2006 of ITO Ward-1(1) 9. The above facts show that the impugned orders have been served on Sri Bathina Veerabhadra Rao himself. For clarity we reproduce herein the copy of acknowledgement for receipt of the impugned order: 10. Interestingly, the assessee-company is a public limited company managed by a Board of Directors. The activities of the assessee are not controlled by a single person viz., Sri Bathina Veerabhadra Rao. Even if it is presumed that the M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ean hands. It has suppressed facts relevant for decision on the issue of the condonation of delay. 13. In Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil v. Shanta Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798 (SC), it has been held, inter alia, that in exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone delay for sufficient cause in not preferring an appeal or other application within the period prescribed, courts should adopt a pragmatic approach; that a distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days; that in the former consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor and call for a more cautious approach; that the court has to exercise its discretion on the facts of each case, keeping in mind the that in construing the expression "sufficient cause" the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. 14. Being so, the delay cannot be condoned simply because the assessee's case calls for sympathy or merely out of benevolence to the party seeking relief. In granting the indulgence and condoning the delay, it must be proved beyond the shadow of doubt that the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-103 June 2012 སཱི ༠༢༥ སཾ ཉྙཾ ཀà½à¾ ནི སཾ spinsects of aprico correctly, he is imipinning and sends to be evder Recyston panjchiabe NOBLE POLY CLINIC lid Lark wataka 9 am an Supervision 14/8/12 Dr ENTAR PATNAM Document 2 Dr. A. SHEKAR REDDY E-mail: [email protected] A Adi Clinics (Mind. & De-addiction Institute) For Appointment: Call 9247116640 15-8-12 TREATMENT CERTIFICATE 8/o: This is to Centify that Mr. BATHINA VEERABHADRA RAO, Late. SWAMY BATHINA, aged 544, was under my treatment for SEVERE DEPRESSION with DEMENTIA from to Jan 2008. He was " 20-08-200L having Sevene Depressions, with Meany loss and beats of flamic attacks. He was abse Hospitalical ance for the same problem. This is for your kind information NOTE: Dr. A. SHEKAR REDDY Consultant Hours Paychiatrie Ragd No: 37886 Document 3 26 पावती परà¥à¤šà¥€ क० सू० सी०-50 EAR OFF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SLIP 16 /P. A. No. ....