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

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANJUNATHA.G, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Chennai, dated 12.09.2019, and

pertains to assessment year 2016-17.

ITA No.133/Chny/2023 Ms.Raghupathy Dhakshayani :: 2 ::

time of hearing, submitted that the appeal has been filed with a delay of

1161 days, for which, petition for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal

along with Affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay has been filed.

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.

ITA No.133/Chny/2023 Ms.Raghupathy Dhakshayani :: 3 ::

petition filed by the assessee for condonation of huge delay, submitted that

reasons given by the assessee are vague and unreasonable, which is

evident from the fact that the assessee had filed e-return for the impugned

assessment year and also represented her case before the AO and the

Ld.CIT(A). Further, although, assessee claims that due to Covid-19, she

could not come to Chennai, but fact remains that the appeal order passed

in the month of September, 2019, and the same was communicated to the

assessee on 01.10.2019, and during that period, Covid-19 was not at all

present in India. Further, claim of the assessee that she was out of station

during that period, is also not acceptable for the simple reasons, the

assessee was very much available in India during said period. Therefore,

Ld.DR submitted that there is no valid grounds for condonation of delay of

1161 days, and thus, appeal filed by the assessee should be dismissed as

unadmitted.

record and gone through orders of the authorities below. Admittedly,

appeal has been filed after delay of 1161 days. The assessee has filed a

petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining the reasons

for delay in filing of the appeal. We have gone through the reasons given

by the assessee for not filing the appeal within due date prescribed under

the Act and after considering reasons given by the assessee, we find that

ITA No.133/Chny/2023 Ms.Raghupathy Dhakshayani :: 4 ::

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

ITA No.133/Chny/2023 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.

Sd/- Sd/- (महावीर िसंह) (मंजूनाथा.जी) (MANJUNATHA.G) (MAHAVIR SINGH) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 30th October, 2023. TLN आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ� / Appellant 3. आयकर आयु� / CIT 5. गाड� फाईल / GF 2. ��यथ� / Respondent 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध / DR