ITAT Surat held that Legal Ignorance No Excuse for Delayed Appeal Filing

ITAT Surat held that Legal Ignorance No Excuse for Delayed Appeal Filing

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH (SMC), SURAT

BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Nileshkumar Chhaganbhai Vasoya

Vs

ITO (Surat)

Appeal Number : ITA No. 64/Srt/2023

Date of Judgement/Order : 08/05/2023

Assessment Year: 2017-18

Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 29/03/2022 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

• “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 11,12,500/- as unexplained money on account of cash deposited during the period of demonetization u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
• 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Assessing  Officer has erred in invoking provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act and in thereby  taxing entire unexplained money at 60 percentage and levying surcharge at 25 percentagewhich is not applicable on above addition.
• 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of  the hearing of the appeal.”

2. On perusal of record, I find that the impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 29/03/2022, however, the present appeal is filed on 27/01/2023. The Registry of this bench has issued defect memo, intimating the assessee about the delay of 244 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. The assessee in his application has contended that he is a common man and not well-versed with the tax proceedings. He was not aware about passing of order and was told by his counsel.

3. None appeared on behalf of assessee despite service of notice.

 Initially, Shri Rohit Taja, C.A. filed his authority letter. Mr. Rohit Taja is appearing off and on as per his choice. Today i.e.03/05/2023 none appeared despite waiting for sufficient time and making repeated calls for physical hearing. Neither, anybody appeared nor filed any application for adjournment on behalf of assessee, therefore, I decide to hear the submissions of learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue and to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that the assessee has not shown any sufficient cause for such a long delay of 244 days in filing appeal. The cause of delay as mentioned in the application that he is a common man and was not aware about passing of order, is not sufficient cause for condoning delay. The intimation of passing of order is immediately passon by way of e-mail as well as SMS, on the e-mail and telephone number provided by the assessee while filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has not shown any sufficient cause nor has come forward to explain any other compelling circumstances for filing appeal belatedly.

      4. I have considered the submission of ld. Sr. DR for the revenue and perused the record carefully. I            find that in the application for condonation of delay, the assessee has casually contended that he is a        common man and was not aware, such plea cannot be sufficient and reasonable ground for                        condoning the delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Resultantly, the delay in filing appeal is not          condoned. Hence appeal of the assessee is dismissed as unadmitted.

      5. In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed.

          Order announced in open court on 08th May, 2023.

• RAJASTHAN AAR CLARIFIES 18% GST ON MINING ROYALTY PAID TO STATE GOVERNMENT
• SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS VALIDITY OF LEVY GST ON LOTTERIES: SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT LTD v. UNION OF INDIA
• SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS THE VALIDITY OF ARREST PROVISIONS UNDER CUSTOM AND GST ACT: RADHIKA AGARWAL V. UNION OF INDIA
• SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES DEPRECIATION ON NON-COMPETE FEE U/S 32(1)(ii) OF INCOME TAX ACT
• Supreme Court Issues Directions for Cataloguing Witnesses and Documentary Evidences in Criminal Trial: Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar Case