Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 2913 days, seeking condonation based on an affidavit. The affidavit cited reasons such as being misled by a previous consultant, personal hardships due to father's demise, shifting residence, and confusion regarding father's identity. The assessee claimed to have been unaware of the order until an intimation was received.
Held
The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay unconvincing and not supported by evidence. The explanation of being misled by a consultant was not considered sufficient to absolve the assessee of responsibility. The Tribunal concluded that the circumstances, though unfortunate, did not justify the extraordinary lapse of time.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned on the grounds presented by the assessee, given the lack of diligence and supporting evidence.
Sections Cited
245, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
आदेश/ORDER
PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.:
This appeal is filed by Shri Ravi Kumar Kandala (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Guntur (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 06.01.2017 for the A.Y. 2011-12.
At the outset, it is found that there is delay of 2913 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay along with an Affidavit explaining the reasons of such delay. The Affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay is to the following effect :
The assessee has filed an affidavit dated 22.05.2025 explaining the reasons for the delay. It has been submitted that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was never received by the assessee, and that he was falsely assured by his earlier tax consultant that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) had been decided in his favour. Based on this advice, the assessee contends that he remained under the bona fide belief that no further action was required on his part. It is further stated that he became aware of the adverse order only upon receipt of an intimation u/s 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 25.11.2024, where adjustment of refund was proposed against the demand for the relevant year. Upon receipt of the said intimation, the assessee, through his present consultant, approached the jurisdictional income tax office and obtained a copy of the appellate order and the assessment order. The assessee has also cited personal hardships arising from the demise of his father on 25.06.2016, shifting of residence, and difficulty in accessing records. He has additionally submitted that there was some confusion regarding identity due to variation in the name of his deceased father across different documents such as death certificate, PAN, Aadhaar and driving licence. He has prayed that the delay may be condoned on account of these reasons, claiming that the same was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to genuine and unavoidable circumstances beyond his control.
The learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) has strongly objected to the condonation of such an inordinate and prolonged delay. It was submitted by the Ld. DR that the delay of nearly eight years is wholly unjustified, and the assessee has failed to produce any contemporaneous evidence to support the claim that he remained unaware of the order of Ld. CIT(A) for such an extended period. It was further argued that the affidavit merely contains broad and self-serving assertions without any corroborating documentary material to demonstrate diligence on the part of the assessee. The Ld. DR thus prayed for dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation.
We have carefully gone through the affidavit filed by the assessee and the submissions advanced by both parties. On a holistic reading of the affidavit and accompanying materials, we are unable to accept that the assessee acted with reasonable diligence. The plea that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was not received for more than seven years appears improbable, especially in the absence of any evidence showing steps taken during this time to follow up the appeal status or seek a copy of the order. The explanation that the assessee was misled by his tax consultant also does not absolve him from the responsibility of monitoring the proceedings related to his own income tax matters. We further find that the assessee has not placed any material to demonstrate that he made efforts to ascertain the status of the appeal during the intervening period. The circumstances cited regarding the demise of his father and variation in documentation, though unfortunate, do not justify such an extraordinary lapse of time. In the totality of the circumstances, we find no justifiable cause to condone the delay. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. As a consequence, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as time-barred.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 10th June, 2025.