AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earlier withdrawals from the bank account and out of the commission income of assessee. 2.1 During the course of hearing, the Bench noticed that there is a delay of 80 days in filing the appeal for which the assessee has filed an application dated 11-04-2025 for condonation of delay giving therein following reasoning. "Sub: Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal With reference to above it is to submit that the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dt.22.11.2024 has upheld the order passed by AO assessing the total income at Rs. 15.35.110/-. The appeal was to be filed on or before 31.01.2025. However, for the reasons stated hereunder, the appeal could not be filed in time:- 1. I am a commission agent. I have not filed my return of income for AY 2011-12 as my income was below the maximum amount chargeable to tax 2. AO issued notice u/s 148 dt. 28.03.2018 on the basis of information that there is cash deposit of Rs. 5,15,000/- in my bank account. I engaged CA Sunil Mittal, Bharatpur to file my return of income which was filed on 28.11.2018 at Rs. 13,150/. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings CA Sunil Mittal once appeared before AD bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay in filing the appeal and therefore, the delay is condoned. 3. M/s Midas Polymer Compounds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT ITA No.288/Coch/2017 order dt. 25.06.2018 (Cochin) (Trib.): -Delay of 2819 days in filing the appeal caused by the fault of CA/ Counsel has to be condoned. The expression "sufficient cause" should be interpreted to advance substantial justice. If there is "sufficient cause", the period of delay cannot be regarded as excessive or inordinate. 4. Desert Infraspace (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2024) 300 Taxman 406 (Guj.) (HC):-Where Tribunal dismissed appeal filed by assessee against addition made on account of unexplained share capital u/s 68 in its hand as ex parte as Chartered Accountant engaged by assessee to contest its case remained negligent towards his professional duty and case of assessee could not be represented effectively, since negligence was not attributed to assessee, assessee was to be given another opportunity of hearing before Tribunal. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld.DR objected to condonation application of the assessee. 2.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record and also the case laws cited by the ld. AR ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ai in the case of M/s. Chemipol vis. Union of India [Central Excise Appeal No.62/2009 dated Dec.12th 2009] clearly states that every court judicial body or authority, which has a duty to decide a list between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss the case in default. For case of reference, relevant extract of the judicial pronouncement rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the said case, 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 or tribunal is supposed to continue a proceeding before it when the party who has moved it has not appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal, therefore, is an inherent power which every tribunal possesses." The above proposition has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Vs. Shankar (1984 (Supp) SCC 63) Further Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan (2000) 3 SCC 242. has stated as under- "That every court or judicial body or authority, which has a duty to d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appeal was filed on 11.04.2025 and thus there is a delay of 80 days in filing the appeal. This delay is due to the negligence of counsel of assessee CA Sunil Mittal for which assessee should not be penalized. Reliance in this connection is placed on the following cases:- Bhagwati Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO ITA No.169/Asr/2015 order dt. 22.10.2019 (Asr.) (Trib.) (TM) Condonation of delay of 571 days: Mistake of counsel may be taken into account in condoning delay. Claim that the delay was caused by counsel not communicating the order has to be accepted unless it is shown that blame put on counsel is with malafide intentions in order to cover up mistake/lapse on the part of assessee. As per human conduct and probabilities, a professional counsel cannot be expected to admit his lapses as it may affect his reputation. Also if the appeal is adjudicated on merits, refusing to condone the delay is an error. Srimaan Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2022) 213 DTR 105 (Hyd.) (Trib.) In view of the fact that the assessee's counsel neither appeared before the CIT(A) nor informed the assessee about the disposal of the appeal and the assessee came to know....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f of the assessee to file the reply as required by the AO for which the AO made addition amounting to Rs. 15,34,300/- in the hands of the assessee by observing as under:- "3. Despite issue of notice u/s 142(1) of the LT Act, 1961, neither the assessee nor his authorized representative attended nor any reply in compliance to above notice was filed by the assessee in required date, therefore, I have no option but to complete the assessment case ex-parte. It is pertinent to mention here that last notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 04.12.2018 requiting to show cause why the cash deposit of Rs. 15,34,300/- be not treated as escaped income under head "Income from other sources" for A.Y. 2011-12 The assessee was at liberty to file his reply either directly or through his A/R but the assessee has opted otherwise i.e. not to file any reply in the case. The reasons are best known to the assessee only. As such I am left with no other option but to complete the assessment under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 after considering the facts and as well as on the basis of material/information available on records. 4 Notice u/s 143(2) of the IT. Act, 1961 was issued on 29.11.2....