TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n as under: That the order u/s 143 (3) r w s 263 for A.Y. 2008-09 passed by CIT (A) dismissing the appeal of the appellant was received on 10/04/2015. Mr. Sanjiv Shah, Accountant was entrusted with the task to file appeal before Hon'ble ITAT that required to be filed within 60 days of receipt of appellate order. However, the accountant kept the order in his drawer without taking any action & eventually resigned from the job in the month of December 2015. On clearing his drawer it came to the notice about non filing of appeal before Hon'ble ITAT & hence it was immediately forwarded to the office of Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Senior Advocate and appeal was filed on 29/12/2015 after delay of 203 days. Therefore I hereby request your honour to take this reason into consideration and to condone the delay in filing of the captioned appeal due to negligence of the Accountant and to grant me an opportunity of being heard on merits. That what has been stated above is the fact and true to my knowledge." 3. Thus, the stand of the assessees is that their accountant received orders of the CIT(A) and kept the orders in his drawer without taking any action and inform....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then, Hon'ble Court were unanimous in their conclusion that this expression is to be used liberally. We may make reference to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme court from the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, 1987 AIR 1353: "1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss." We do not deem it necessary to re-cite or recapitulate the proposition laid down in other decisions. It is suffice to say that the Hon'ble Courts are unanimous in their approach to propound that whenever the reasons assigned by an applicant for explaining the condonation of delay, then such reasons are to be construed with a justice oriented approach. 7. In the light of the above, let us examin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as finalized on 22.12.2010 determining taxable income at Rs. 24,99,440/- i.e. returned income. The ld.Commissioner took cognizance under section 263 of the Income Tax Act and set aside these assessment orders. In pursuance of 263-order, the AO has passed fresh assessment order on 21.1.2014 in the case of both assessees in all these years. In the fresh assessment order, he determined taxable income of the assessee as under: Shri Tarun S. Verma, Asstt: Year 2008-09 10. Subject to the above remarks and data made available, the total income of the assessee is computed as under :- Income from salary as per computation of total income Rs. 2,40,000/- Income from house property as per computation of total income Rs. 19,589/- Income from other sources as per computation of total income Rs. 14,939/- Gross Total Income Rs. 1,06,38,040/- Less : Deduction under Chapter VIA Rs. 1,10,500/- Assessed Total Income Rs. 1,05,27,540/- Shri Gaurav S. Verma, Asstt: Year 2008-09 "10. Subject to the above remarks and data made available, the total income of the assessee is com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AO. 12. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. At this stage, we deem it appropriate to take note of the finding recorded by the ld.CIT(A) in the case of Tarun S. Varma for the Asstt.Year 2009-10. Identical finding has been recorded in other two years. The finding recorded as under: 5. DECISION: The issue of non compliance by assessees at appellate stage has been considered and decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Various High Courts as discussed below: 1. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of M/s Chemipol v/s. Union of India [Central Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009] clearly states, that every court judicial body or authority, which has a duty to decide a matter between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss the case in default. For the sake of reference, the relevant extract of the judicial pronouncement rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai quoting decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nandramdas Dwarkadas, AIR 1958 MP 260, is reproduced below: "Now the Act does not give any power of dismissal. But it is axiomatic that no court o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red decision in the case of CIT v. Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd. on 02.09.2011 (ITA No.798 of2009)f the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held that a negligent assessee should not be given many opportunities just because that quantum of amount involved is high. Necessary course of action is to draw adverse inference; otherwise it would amount to give premium to the assessee for his negligence. When the assessee is noncooperative, it can naturally be safely concluded that the assessee did not want to adduce evidence as it would expose falsity and non genuineness. In view of the facts and legal position discussed above, it is presumed that appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal and not having any documents, explanation and evidence in support of grounds of appeal raised and thus has not discharged the onus to prove the genuineness of the transactions / addition made by the AO. Therefore the grounds of appeal of the appellant are discussed hereunder are confirmed. 1. The first ground of appeal is general in nature and needs no adjudication. 2. The second ground of appeal relates to addition of Rs. 95,94,949/- as Income from business, as against gai....