TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 39
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....271(1)(c) dated 28.08.2014 and order under section 271D dated 11.07.2014 respectively by refusing to condone the delay in filing of these appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, trading in IMFL, filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2011-2012 on 14.10.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 3,10,200. The return was initially processed under section 143(3) on 03.02.2012 resulting in refund of Rs. 3,68,870. Thereafter, information was received from the ACB with regard to the investment made by the assessee towards license-fee for the period of 2010-2011 and subsequent purchases from the APBCL (IMFL). It was found that the amount paid by the assessee as per the information furnished by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....very much eager in getting back investment at the earliest and so were forced to sell the liquor at lesser than the MRP price which resulted in less gross profit than it should be and requested to consider the final results admitted by the assessee. The A.O. drew the attention of the assessee to the decision of ITAT in the case of M/s. Amaravathi Wine Shop in ITA.No.1196/Hyd/2011 dated 08.06.2012 in which income of the retail liquor shop was decided at 5% of the cost of the stock put to sale and proposed to adopt the same in assessee's case also. The assessee accepted the proposal and produced the working of income to be taxed. 3.1. Thereafter, the A.O. further observed that the assessee has obtained license from Prohibition & Excise Sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll the three orders before the Ld. CIT(A) on 03.11.2014 along with an application for condonation of delay in each of the appeals. Along with the petitions for condonation of delay, an affidavit of Smt. K. Jyothi, O/o. Mr. Rao & Co., was filed stating that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act dated 28.202.104 was handed-over to the representative of the assessee, but inadvertently, the same along with the entire file was misplaced and got mingled with another of assessee's file and the same was traced out only in the last week of October, 2014. Taking support of this affidavit, assessee stated that delay in filing the appeal is neither willful nor wanton but due to afore-cited reasons and prayed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee that the assessment file was not required by the assessee to file its submissions against the levy of penalty under section 271D and therefore, it cannot be presumed that assessee's contention that the file was misplaced is incorrect. He has submitted that it is noteworthy to consider that the assessee was not represented during the 271(1)(c) proceedings. It was submitted that this was due to non-availability of the assessment records. He further submitted that assessee, having explained the reasons for the delay, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and considered assessee's appeals on merit. This argument of the assessee has been countered by the Ld. D.R. stating that the appeals have been filed by the assessee as an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature. 16. In view of above, no interference is....