DHANALAKSHMI SRINIVASAN CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PERAMBALUR vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZHIABAD

Upon perusal of para-2 of impugned orders, it could be seen that the appeals have been filed with a delay of 1956 days, 1227 days and 1129 days. The same was on the reasoning that the orders were served on the TRACES portal of the Trust in the inbox, which contained numerous communications including general communications. Later, following search assessment in the case of the assessee, the outstanding arrears were noted and intimations u/s 200A were forwarded to concerned Chartered Accountant to prefer further appeals. It was submitted that the delay was neither willful nor wanton. However, Ld. CIT(A) held that there was no dispute that the orders were duly served on the assessee and the same were also served on email registered with the Income Tax department. Therefore, the arguments of assessee could not be accepted and all the appeals were dismissed for want of condonation of delay. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

After perusal of impugned orders and the reasoning given by the assessee seeking condonation of inordinate delay, we find that there was huge delay of 1956 days, 1227 days and 1129 days which could not be considered as small delay and could not be condoned in a casual manner. There should be finality to assessment proceedings. The assessee, despite having served with notices as required under law, chose to adopt negligent approach and did not care to prefer further appeals. No sufficient or reasonable cause has been demonstrated before us justifying inordinate delay in filing of the appeal.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala (1997; 7 SCC 556) has observed that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or appropriate explanation, the delay is not to be condoned and the courts have to exercise discretion judiciously while condoning the delay. Similarly, in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448, it was held by same court that there should be an end to litigation. The law comes to the assistant of vigilant and not of the sleepy. Considering the same, no interference is called for in the impugned order.

All the appeals stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 29th March, 2023.