Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of over 1412 days. The assessee attributed the delay to a peculiar employment situation where his employer allegedly used concerns opened in his name for business purposes and assured him of handling any issues. The employer later shifted counsel, and the assessee was informed of the appeal's rejection.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the condonation application was filed late and that the assessee's conduct did not inspire confidence.
Key Issues
Whether the delay of over 1412 days in filing the appeal can be condoned based on the explanation provided by the assessee, considering the circumstances of his employment and the employer's actions.
Sections Cited
148, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Ludhiana dt. 21/08/2019 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The present appeal was filed by the assessee on 04.07.2023 against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 21.08.2019. After filing of the appeal, the matter was listed on multiple occasions and as many as 15 adjournments were granted by the Bench at the request of the assessee.
On the last date of hearing, i.e., 01.04.2025, the matter was adjourned to 08.04.2025 at the request of the Ld. AR. Again, on 08.04.2025, the matter was further adjourned to 09.04.2025. On 09.04.2025, the Ld. AR once again sought an adjournment. At that stage, the Ld. DR submitted that the present appeal was not accompanied by any affidavit or application for condonation of delay, despite there being a delay of more than 1344 days in filing the appeal.
In response, the Ld. AR submitted that the Authorised Representative of the employer of the assessee was representing both the assessee and his employer, and 2 that the additions were made on a protective basisin the hands of the assessee and on a substantive basis in the hands of M/s Jai Durga Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd.
The Ld. AR orally explained that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to this peculiar arrangement and prayed that the delay may be condoned in the interest of justice.
Ld. DR relied upon the order of the lower authorities.
We have heard the rival contention of the parties and perused the material available on record. That on 15/04/2025, after the matter was heard on 09/04/2025 by the Bench, the assessee had sent a request for condonation of delay along with the affidavit which is to the following effect:
We have perused the material available on record and find that there is a delay of more than 1,412 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal.
The explanation offered by the Learned Counsel for the assessee in his affidavit is that the assessee was unaware of the passing of the order by the learned CIT(A), under the belief that the appeals were still pending with the said authority. It was further submitted that in June 2023, the ex-employer of the assessee shifted its cases to a new counsel, at which point the assessee was informed that the appeal had been rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) on 21.08.2019. Subsequently, the present appeal was filed before the Tribunal in July 2023.
However, Form 35 filed before the Ld. CIT(A) indicates that the assessee had himself preferred the appeal and had provided mobile number 9417025662 and email ID: mpsmalhotra52@gmail.com. There is no material placed on record by the assessee to demonstrate that the counsel representing the ex-employer was the same as the one handling the assessee’s appeal or that the same email ID was being used for such communication.
8 11. Further, a perusal of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) reveals that the order was dispatched to the assessee at the address provided in Form 35. Notably, the address mentioned in the appeal before the CIT(A) and the address mentioned in the present appeal before the Tribunal are identical. There is no claim made by the assessee that the impugned order was not served at the correct address. Even the averments made in the condonation application do not specifically assert non- receipt of the order; rather, they are vague and general in nature and remain unsupported by cogent evidence.
It is well settled that for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion in condoning delay, the assessee must demonstrate the existence of sufficient cause, which must be both reasonable and bona fide. In the present case, no condonation application was filed along with the appeal. The application seeking condonation of delay was filed only after the appeal was heard by the Bench on 15.04.2025, which further raises questions regarding the bona fides of the assessee's conduct.
In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the explanation tendered by the assessee. The delay of over 1,412 days has not been satisfactorily explained and the conduct of the assessee does not inspire confidence.
In view of the above we do not find any merit in the condonation application of delay and accordingly the same is dismissed. For the above said purposes we rely upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MajjiSannemma @ Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi and others (Civil Appeal No.7696 of 2021 dt.16.12.2021 relied upon by the ld. DR, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the condonation petition. The facts of this case are identical to the facts of the present case. 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 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.”
9 15. In our view, the facts of the present appeal are identical, rather are on worse footing, than that of the case of MajjiSannemma @ Sanyasirao (supra). Hence, the ld.CIT(A) was right in dismissing the condonation application and the appeal of the assessee. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the finding of ld.CIT(A) and accordingly, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.