Smt. Santra Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
ITAT Jaipur held that the litigant cannot be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the consultant or Advocate and disown himself or herself at any time to seek relief for condonation of delay. Accordingly, cost imposed for procedural delay.
Facts- Assessee preferred an appeal with delay of 135 days as regard impugned penalty order and delay of 317 days as regards impugned order pertaining to quantum assessment. Notably, the appellant claimed herself to be an illiterate house wife, and pleaded that when she received show cause notice in respect of proceedings under section 271(1)(c), she delivered the said notice to her consultant, but, he kept the same with himself and did not submit any response thereto.
Conclusion- It is well settled that the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the proceedings initiated or to be initiated at her instance. The litigant must remain in constant touch with the authorized representative. Therefore, the litigant cannot be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the consultant or Advocate and disown himself or herself at any time to seek relief for condonation of delay. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, and in the interest of justice, especially, when the assessee is an illiterate housewife, we deem it a fit case to condone delay in filing of the two appeals before Ld. CIT(A), but subject to costs, as she herself was also not diligent. We order accordingly.
