TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 329
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereas ITA No.616/Ahd/2014 has arisen from a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 13.6.2012. We heard both the appeals together and deem it appropriate to dispose of them by this common order. 2. The first common grievance of the assessee in both the appeals is that ld. CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeals and deciding the appeals on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual. He is engaged in the business of providing security services. According to the AO assessee did not file his original return of income as required under section 139(1) of the Act. On the basis of TDS data available with the department it came to the notice of AO that TDS of Rs. 1,74,323/- was d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not comply with the notices in the assessment proceedings, he did not comply with the notices in the penal proceedings also. The ld. AO has imposed a penalty of Rs. 24,50,449/- in an ex parte order passed on 12th June, 2012. Against this order, assessee has filed an appeal on 16th August, 2012 i.e. along with the quantum appeal. This appeal was stated to be time barred by 32 days. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay along with his affidavit. 6. The ld. first appellate authority refused to condone the delay in both the appeals basically for the reason that conduct of the assessee was very negligent before the AO. He did not bother to respond to any notice from Income-tax Department. In the opinion of the ld. CIT(A) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Sub-section (3) of section 249 empowers the CIT(A) to admit an appeal after the expiry of limitation if he is satisfied that appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within time limit. The expression ''sufficient cause'' has fallen for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of Hon'ble High Courts. The Hon'ble Courts are unanimous on the point that this expression to be construed liberally. The question before us is whether assessee was actually prohibited by sufficient reasons for not presenting the appeal or he has made a deliberate attempt of not properly handling the income-tax proceedings. At this stage, we wo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o give such opportunity in a case where a notice under sub- section (1) of section 142 has been issued prior to the making of an assessment under this section.] (2) 9 The provisions of this section as they stood immediately before their amendment by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 (4 of 1988 ), shall apply to and in relation to any assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988 , or any earlier assessment year and references in this section to the other provisions of this Act shall be construed as references to those provisions as for the time being in force and applicable to the relevant assessment year.] 10. A bare perusal of this section would suggest that in order to estimate income, ld. AO has t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... technical ground but because, they are capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. The contention of the assessee is that he being a lay man has handed over the papers to tax consultant who did not file appeals in time. This belief is to be tested on consequential result i.e. by making the appeal time barred what the assessee will achieve. He cannot adopt a dilatory tactics by filing the appeal late because that will ultimately harm him. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances and the punishment in the shape of tax liability of Rs. 48,86,903/- including interest as well as penalty of more than Rs. 24 lacs, we are of the view that the punishment is disproportionate to the ultimate negligence of the assessee. Therefore,....