RAGHUPAHY DHAKSHAYANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD-8(3), CHENNAI

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANJUNATHA.G, AM:

Ms.Raghupathy Dhakshayani :: 2 ::

The Ld.Counsel for the assessee, referring to petition filed by the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed order on 12.09.2019 and the same has been communicated to the assessee on 01.10.2019. The assessee should have filed appeal on or before 29.11.2019. However, she had filed the appeal on 03.02.2023 after delay of 1161 days. The reasons for delay in filing of the appeal is due to reasons beyond the control of the assessee, because, she was residing with her son in Pune and came back to Chennai only in January, 2023. Further, order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) was received by her brother-in-law, Shri Raja Balu, however, he failed to communicate the receipt of the order to the assessee. She had come to Chennai in January, 2023 and learnt about the appeal order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and took steps to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal, which caused delay of 1161 days. The delay in filing of the appeal was on account of assessee’s absence from Chennai, but not to gain any undue benefit. Therefore, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that reasons given by the assessee comes under reasonable cause for condonation of delay, and thus, appeal filed by the assessee may be admitted for hearing.

Ms.Raghupathy Dhakshayani :: 3 ::

said reasons does not come under reasonable cause as provided under the Act for condonation of huge delay of 1161 days in filing of the appeal. It is a well settled principle of law by the decisions of various courts, including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy reported in [1998] 7 SCC 123 held rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. A similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji, reported in [1987] 2 SCC 107, where although, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Courts must adopt liberal approach to condone the delay, but very categorically observed that it is for the assessee to explain each and every day of delay in filing of the appeal. In the present case, although, there is huge delay of 1161 days in filing of the appeal, but the assessee could not explain delay with valid reasons. Although, the assessee claims that she was not in Chennai during that period and further, she was not aware of order of the Ld.CIT(A), but fact remains that she was very much present in India during that period and further, she has presented her case before the AO and the Ld.CIT(A) with utmost care and diligence. From the above, it is undoubtedly clear that the assessee had taken a casual approach in pursuing her case before the appellate authority, even though, she was aware that she need to file the appeal as per the provisions of the Act within the limitation period provided under the statue. Therefore, we are of the considered view that reasons

Ms.Raghupathy Dhakshayani :: 5 :: given by the assessee for delay in filing of the appeal does not come under reasonable cause for condonation of huge delay of 1161 days, and thus, we reject the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay and dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee as unadmitted.

Order pronounced on the 30th day of October, 2023, in Chennai.