TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 767
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the facts and circumstances of the case and in law notice u/s 143(2) dt 21.09.2018 (within time) has been issued by the, ITO Ward 1(1) Bilaspur who is not the jurisdictional A.O. and no valid notice u/s.143(2) has been issued by the jurisdictional A.O i.e. ITO Ward 1(2) Bilaspur, the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) dt 23.12.2019 is invalid bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 4. That the Ld. CIT(Appeal) erred in confirming cash deposit as the income of the appellant without taking into account the submission of the appellant. The cash deposit does not constitute income of the appellant. 5. The Ld. CIT(Appeal). erred in confirming the cash deposit of Rs. 6,08,500/- as deemed income u/s.69A of the Act, without considering the submissions of the assessee. 6 That the appellant craves leave to add to and/or amend. Alter; rescind the grounds taken here in above, before or the time of hearing of this appeal." 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had e-filed his return of income for A.Y.2017- 18 on 06.01.2018, declaring an income of Rs. 3,40,860/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to put up an appearance even though the matter was on the earlier occasion on 07.02.2024 adjourned for non-appearance on his part, therefore, I am constrained to proceed with and dispose off the appeal as per Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, i.e. after hearing the respondent revenue and perusing the orders of the lower authorities. 6. At the threshold, I find that the appeal filed by the assessee involves a delay of 161 days. As per the application filed by the assessee requesting condonation of delay involved in the filing of the present appeal, I find that it is, inter alia, stated by him that the order of the CIT(Appeals), NFAC was received by him on 30.06.2023. Also, the aforesaid factual position had been endorsed by the assessee in "Form 36" filed before me. For the sake of clarity, the letter of the assessee dated 05.02.2024 seeking condonation of delay is culled out as under: "I Karta of Raj Kumar Nebhani HUF received an order for the AY 2017-18 on 30.06.2023 from National Faceless Appeal Centre. I am not well acquainted with the technology and computers, thus could not access the order within the stipulated time. It came into my notice when my C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e could not access the order passed by the CIT(Appeals), NFAC within the stipulated period. It is stated by him that it was only when his Chartered Accountant had accessed his account in the Income Tax Portal and had learned about the order passed by the CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi and had shared the same with the assessee, that it had for the first time came to the latter's notice. 9. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'DR') vehemently opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of the delay involved in filing of the appeal. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. DR submitted that as an inordinate delay of 161 days was involved in filing of the present appeal which was not explained based on any corroborative material to have occasioned for bonafide reasons, therefore, the same does not merit acceptance. Also, the Ld. DR took us through the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) and submitted that the failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the notices issued by the CIT(Appeals) on several occasions revealed that the assessee habitually adopted a lackadaisical approach and irresponsible conduct regarding the income tax proceedings. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 days, which has not been explained by the assessee to have occasioned due to bonafide reasons. As observed by me hereinabove, as there was no justifiable reason for the assessee to file the appeal before me after 161 days, therefore, there appears to be no reason to adopt a liberal view and condone the delay therein involved. Also, I may observe at this juncture that the law of limitation has to be construed strictly as it has an effect of vesting on one and taking away the right from the other party. The delay in filing the appeals cannot be condoned mechanically or routinely since that would undoubtedly jeopardize the legislative intent behind Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 13. I may herein observe that in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Administrator, Howrah 1972 AIR SC 749, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, particularly when there is no motive behind the delay. The expression "sufficient cause" will always have relevancy to reasonableness. The action that can be condoned by the court should fall within the realm of normal human conduct or normal conduct of ....