MIRCOWAVE COMMUNICATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 25/10/2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2012-13, raising following grounds:

1. The CIT(A)-29 has erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer as the same is bad and unsustainable in law.

4. The CIT(A)-29 has erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer as the same has been passed on surmises and conjectures.

5. The Appellant craves leave to add and alter grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.

2. At the outset, we have noticed that the appeal has been filed with the delay of 3 months and 11 days for which the appellant has filed an application for condonation of the delay. We also find that despite notifying the date of hearin, neither anyone appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed any adjournment application on the date of the hearing. In the facts and circumstances, we were of the opinion that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Accordingly, we heard the application for condemnation of the delay in filing appeal ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing arguments of the Ld. Department Representative.

3. It was submitted by the Ld. Department Representative that there are no sufficient ground for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. She submitted that reasons cited in the application are not supported by way of affidavit of respective official and also no evidences are submitted to support that assessment order was received by said official. According to her, in view of no justified reasons, the delay might not be condoned.

“Most respectfully, it is submitted that the impugned order dated 25.10.2016 was received in the office of the Apellant company on 15.11.2016. Unfortunately, the official who received the order i.e. Sh Lokesh Chandra Gupta had kept it in the old record files and proceeded on leave for three weeks for going to his native place. On receipt of the appellate order, the receiving clerk did not intimate to any of his seniors or the director(s). After three weeks of resumption of duty, he was unable to recollect about having received the impugned order. However, during one of the regular file checks, the impugned order was located two days back as a matter of chance. By now, around 5 months have lapsed since the receipt of the appellate order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and filing of appeal has been much delayed because of the negligence of our employee. The appeal was to be filed before your kind self on or before 14.01.2017. It is being presented today with a delay of 3 months, 11 days. It is humbly requested that the Appellant may kindly be pardoned for the unintended lapse on our part and delayed appeal may very kindly be accepted and taken into consideration by condoning the delay, which occurred quite inadvertently because of the negligence of our employee. It is further submitted that the delay was due to an honest inadvertent error and there was no negligence or deliberate inaction on the part of the appellant.”

4.1 In the application, the assessee has cited reason for delay in filing appeal as the official of the assessee company misplaced the appellate order of First Appellate Authority, but this statement is not supported by evidences. 4.2 We agree with the argument of the Ld. Department Representative that no evidence to support the reasons for delay in filing the appeal have been filed by the assessee. In absence of evidences, the assessee failed to explain sufficient cause of delay in filing appeal. We are of the opinion that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal as well as condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. In the circumstances, we reject the application of the assessee for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal and dismiss the appeal as unadmitted at the threshold.