Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order dated 31.01.2014 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 for AY 2009-10. There was a significant delay of 3784 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee submitted an affidavit seeking condonation of delay, citing lack of awareness of the order and non-communication by the previous legal practitioner.
Held
The Tribunal found the reasons for the inordinate delay to be vague and unsubstantiated, noting a lack of day-to-day explanation as required by Supreme Court precedents. The request for condonation of delay was therefore rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the inordinate delay of 3784 days in filing an appeal against an order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act should be condoned based on the reasons provided by the assessee.
Sections Cited
263, 143(3), 143(3)/263(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, AM : Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 31.01.2014 passed by the Ld. Commissioner/ Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Hisar u/s 263 for AY 2009-10.
847-Chd-2024 Daljeet Singh, Jind 2
Grounds of appeal, as raised by the Assessee are reproduced as under:
1. 1. The CIT cannot consider AO order which is duly accepted by Appellant under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act.
2. The CIT has failed to understand the business model of the Appellant, and erroneously interpreted the loss effected by the depositors as a tool to evade tax. 3. That the CIT did not allow the Appellant reasonable opportunity of being heard before issuing order.
Case Laws- (i) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 that "condonation of delay reasonable cause delay of 1297 days in filing appeal being on account of lapse on the part of consultant and not being malafide, there was valid reason warranting condonation of delay and admission of appeal".
(ii) Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh (Supreme Court) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2395 of 2008 dated 26.06.2010 Unless mala fides are writ large, delay should be condoned.
847-Chd-2024 Daljeet Singh, Jind 3
Matters should be disposed of on merits and not technicalities. We crave leave to amend, modify and/or alter grounds and/or to adduce and rely upon such further evidence and/or documents as may be required at anytime before and during the time of hearing.
The Registry has pointed out that there is a massive delay of 3784 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal.
4. The Counsel of the Assessee has filed an Affidavit dated 03.8.2024 for condonation of delay which is reproduced as under:-
847-Chd-2024 Daljeet Singh, Jind 4
847-Chd-2024 Daljeet Singh, Jind 5
Per Contra, the ld. DR strongly opposed the request of the Assessee for condonation of this inordinate delay.
We have considered the reasons for delay in the Affidavit filed by the Assessee for condonation of delay. In our considered opinion, the reasons advanced by the Assessee for not filing appeal against the 263 Order before the Tribunal, in time, are vague and are unsubstantiated. There is no explanation or evidence on record intimating that any effort was made by the Assessee to ascertain such facts from its counsel. We are also unable to comprehend the failure on the part of the professionals to communicate their clients in a clear and proper way. In recent times, there appears to be a growing tendency to attribute delays in filing appeals to alleged lapses by professionals, often without any supporting material or affidavit. We do not approve of this practice of imputing negligence or misconduct to professionals in the absence of even a scintilla of evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has consistently held that a person seeking condonation of delay must furnish a satisfactory
847-Chd-2024 Daljeet Singh, Jind 6 explanation, including a day-to-day account, for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time.
In view of the above, we find no merit in the application seeking condonation of delay. In support of this conclusion, we place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi and Others [Civil Appeal No. 7696 of 2021, dated 16.12.2021], relied upon by the Ld. DR, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the condonation application on similar facts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court at Para 6.2 had reproduced the facts of the case to the following effect:
“6.2 We have gone through the averments in the application for the condonation of delay. There is no sufficient explanation for the period from 15.03.2017 till the Second Appeal was preferred in the year 2021. In the application seeking condonation of delay it was stated that she is aged 45 years and was looking after the entire litigation and that she was suffering from health issues and she had fallen sick from 01.01.2017 to 15.03.2017 and she was advised to take bed rest for the said period. However, there is no explanation for the period after 15.03.2017. Thus, the period of delay from 15.03.2017 till
847-Chd-2024 Daljeet Singh, Jind 7 the Second Appeal was filed in the year 2021 has not at all been explained. Therefore, the High Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously.”
In our view, the facts of the present appeal are identical, rather are on worse footing, than that of the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao (supra). Therefore, in our considered view, the request and issue raised in its Affidavit do not bring out the true picture. Accordingly, the request of condonation of delay is rejected and, thus, the appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed.