SHAHUL HAMEED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORP CIR-2, , CHENNAI

PER G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

Since, facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off, by this consolidated order.

condonation of delay along with Affidavit has been filed explaining the reasons for delay in filing of these appeals. The Ld.AR for the assessee referring to petition filed by the assessee submitted that appeal orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) on 29.01.2018, 30.01.2018 & 31.01.2018 has been received by the assessee on 28.03.2018. The assessee had handed over original orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and copies of assessment orders and other relevant papers to the Accountant, to be handed over to the Advocate in order to prepare appeal papers against the orders of Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AR further submitted that in the meantime, the assessee met with an accident and got injured severely and fractured his hands. Further, he was under treatment and was advised total bed rest. After the accident, the assessee was on continuous treatment for various ailments and was advised not to travel and to be on bed rest. Under these extreme health conditions, the assessee could not totally concentrate on his business or other tax compliances such as filing the returns and also preferring the appeals. Further, the assessee under a bona fide belief that the Accountant would take care of these aspects and follow up with the Advocate for filing of the appeals. However, the Accountant abruptly quit his job without handing over the documents relating to Income Tax matters to the assessee. Therefore, he submitted that the delay in filing of the appeals is beyond the control of the assessee.

Further, the assessee neither derived any benefit nor got undue advantage by not filing the appeals, but rather he was put himself under great trouble -217/Chny/2019 Mr.Shahul Hameed :: 3 :: by not preferring the appeals and thus, submitted that the delay in filing of these appeals may be condoned in the interest of natural justice.

We find that prima facie the reasons given by the assessee, in the Affidavit for condonation of delay of 247 days, seems to be not bona fide. We have gone through the affidavit filed by the assessee and also examined sequence of events and after considering necessary facts, we are of the considered view that the reasons given by the assessee in Affidavit is not bona fide. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no merit -217/Chny/2019 Mr.Shahul Hameed :: 4 :: in the reasons given by the assessee in the petition for condonation of delay in filing of the appeals.

Further, in a case, where, for the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, the appeals could not be filed, then, the Courts are well equipped with power to condone the delay, if the assessee explains the delay in filing of the appeals with a reasonable cause. However, there is no law or mandate in the Act, to condone the delay in each and every case. But, it depends upon facts of each case and the reasons given by the parties for condonation of delay. Therefore, one has to go by the facts of its own case and the reasons given by the assessee for condonation of delay. In this case, on perusal of reasons given by the assessee for delay in filing of the appeals, we find that although it appears, the assessee is not deriving any benefit by not filing the appeals within the due date prescribed under the -217/Chny/2019 Mr.Shahul Hameed :: 5 ::

Act, but, from contents of petition filed by the assessee, we could easily make out a case that the assessee has made an afterthought to file the appeals against the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, in our considered view, for these vague reasons, such huge delay of 247 days in filing of the appeals, cannot be condoned.

Order pronounced on the 28th day of September, 2022, in Chennai.