Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Jumma Khan Pathar Nisha, Chennai vs Income Tax Officer ,Non Corporate ... on 23 May, 2022
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, 'ए' यायपीठ, चे ई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'A' BENCH, CHENNAI
ी महावीर सह, उपा य एवं ी िगरीश अ वाल, लेखा सद य के सम
BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND
SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 983/CHNY/2020
िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2013-14
Smt. Jumma Khan Pathar Nisha The Income Tax Officer,
Old No. 69/New No. 186, v. Non Corporate Ward -12(1),
Pidariar Koil Street, George Town, Chennai.
Chennai - 600 001.
PAN: AJCPP-6723-C
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent)
अपीलाथ क ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. K. Meenakshi Sundaram, ITP
यथ क ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23.05.2022
घोषणा क तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 23.05.2022
आदेश /O R D E R
PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by the Assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai in ITA no. 04/CIT(A)-13/2013-14 dated 22.09.2017 against the assessment order passed by ITO, Non Corporate Ward-12(1), Chennai, passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as "the Act") dated 22.03.2016.
2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 1125 days in filing of appeal. Hence, this appeal is barred by limitation. Shri. K. 2 Smt. Jumma Khan Pathar Nisha ITA No. 983/Chny/2020 AY: 2013-14 Meenakshi Sundaram, ITP, Ld. Counsel for the assessee represented the matter before us and referred to the petition filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, along with affidavit of the assessee dated 24.12.2020. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee explained the reasons for the delay of 1125 days by stating that the assessee received the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on 30.09.2017, which was handed over by her to the auditor Shri Abdul Azeez Ariff. It was explained that the auditor had given an assurance to the assessee that arrangements will be made for filing the appeal through an Advocate. The assessee was under the belief that auditor have filed the appeal before the Tribunal in time, though, it was not done so by the auditor, fact of which came to her knowledge at a later point of time. Later on she learnt that the auditor Shri Abdul Azeez Ariff was under certain medical ailment and ultimately expired on 14.06.2020.
3. Ld. SR. DR strongly opposed for the condonation of delay on the general and vague explanations given by the assessee for an extremely inordinate delay of 1125 days in filing this appeal. According to him, such an approach does not demonstrate a responsible behavior on the part of the assessee.
4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. From the perusal of the impugned assessment order, we note 3 Smt. Jumma Khan Pathar Nisha ITA No. 983/Chny/2020 AY: 2013-14 that Shri. Dhool Chand Varma, FCA appeared on behalf of the assessee as authorized representative before the Ld. AO in the assessment proceedings. Further, from the order of Ld. CIT(A), it is noted that Shri. K. Meenakshi Sundaram, ITP, appeared before the first appellant authority and represented the matter of the assessee in appeal. Even before us, the assessee is represented by Shri K. Meenakshi Sundaram, ITP. These facts show that for attending the proceedings before the authorities below, competent professional engagements were made by the assessee for effective representation of her case at various stages. The general and vague reasons given to explain the delay of more than 3 years by passing the buck on the shoulders of auditor does not speak about the reasonable and responsible approach in handling the matter, wherein the tax demand for the sum of Rs. 16,34,530/- is involved. With the demand of such an amount remaining outstanding on the part of the tax payer, there is a reasonable expectation of being vigilant and responsible in taking up these matters in a diligent way. The facts so narrated and explained by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee through the petition for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal do not convince us in order to proceed us to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to 4 Smt. Jumma Khan Pathar Nisha ITA No. 983/Chny/2020 AY: 2013-14 dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The facts otherwise noted from the assessment order and the first appellant authority in respect of professional representation before the authorities below do not favour the assessee in order to support the contentions made in the petition for condonation of delay. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for condonation of delay filed by the assessee in the instant appeal.
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 23rd May, 2022 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/-
(
महावीर सह ) (िगरीश अ वाल)
(GIRISH AGRAWAL)
(MAHAVIR SINGH)
लेखा सद!य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
/VICE PRESIDENT
उपा य
चे#ई /Chennai,
rd
%दनांक/Dated, the 23 May, 2022
JPV
आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. यथ /Respondent 3. आयकर आयु (अपील)/CIT(A)
4. आयकर आयु /CIT 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 6. गाड फाईल/GF.