Loading judgment…
Facts
An NRI assessee's case was picked for scrutiny after he deposited Rs.64,10,500 in his bank accounts. The CIT(A) sustained an addition of Rs.39,55,500 after deleting Rs.24,55,000, which the assessee had claimed as cash withdrawals. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal, but with a delay of 452 days.
Held
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the 452-day delay in filing the appeal, primarily being out of India, to be general and unsupported by documents, thus not constituting a "reasonable cause." Citing judicial precedents on condonation of delay, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.
Key Issues
The key issue was whether there was sufficient "reasonable cause" to condone the 452-day delay in filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH:COCHIN
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV
Date of Hearing : 29.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025 O R D E R PERPRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 24.11.2023 having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058223992(1) and relates to the AY 2016-17.
Brief facts of the case as coming out from the orders of authorities below are that the assessee is a NRI, filed his return of income for the impugned year on 31.3.2017 declaring an income of Rs.5,99,900/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that assessee has deposited an amount of Rs.64,10,500/- in its two HareesHaneefa, Kollam Page 2 of 4 savings bank accounts with Axis Bank. The AO asked for the source of the cash deposit. However, the assessee, besides making general submissions before the AO could not be able to substantiate the source of cash deposit before the AO.
Aggrieved with the order of AO, assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A), wherein it has been inter-alia argued that out of the amount of Rs.64,10,500/-, an amount of Rs.24,55,000/- is being cash withdrawal by the assessee from his own bank account. The assessee in support of this contention also filed certain additional evidences before the ld. CIT(A). After calling remand report from the AO, the ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs.24,55,000/- and sustained the addition of R.39,55,500/- and in this way partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
3.1. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come up in appeal before us. There is a delay of 452 days in filing the appeal before us. Today when this matter is listed for hearing, no one appeared from the side of assessee, despite the service of notice. Therefore, we are deciding this appeal on the basis of documents placed before us.
Assessee has filed an affidavit in the support of his condonation application. In this affidavit, assessee has explained that most of the time assessee was out of India and hence could not be able to file this appeal in time before the Tribunal.
5. Ld. D.R. contended that this is the case of an inordinate delay of 452 days and the submissions made by the assessee in his condonation application are general in nature and hence, does not constitute reasonable cause.
HareesHaneefa, Kollam Page 3 of 4 6. After considering the arguments of ld. D.R. and perusing the evidences for condonation of delay, we are of the opinion that the explanation given by the assessee would not constitute reasonable cause. The explanation of the assessee is very general in nature without any supporting documents. It is settled position of law that now it is the cause behind the delay and not length of delay, which is to be seen by the court while exercising its discretion for condoning the delay.
6.1 Further, we would like to refer to the recent judgement of the coordinate bench of Cochin Tribunal in the case of KoootheryNarayanANVijayan Vs. ITO in to 981/Coch/2024 vide order dated 30.5.2025, wherein the coordinate bench in para 5 has observed as under:
“After considering the rival submission, we observe that it is pertinent to note that the documents produced by the assessee were not in strict sense the medical certificates rather medical prescription of the assessee, we would further like to mention certain dates which goes to the root of the matter, for judging whether the contention of assessee of keeping ill health is correct or not. A perusal of the Medical Prescription dated 17.12.2023 would show that the assessee was having some problems in his spine and the doctor advised him for 3 weeks bed rest. Three weeks probably end by 08.01.2024, afterwards the other medical prescription dated 02.02.2024 and 06.06.2024 would nowhere show that the assessee was advised complete bed rest. The order of the CIT(A) is dated 08.02.2024. Which means period of limitation for filing the appeals was ending on 07.04.2024, during this period the assessee was absolutely fine as evident from the fact that the assessee had visited the doctor on 06.06.2024. Second contention of the assessee is that the tax consultant MrMadhu failed to take note of the order of the CIT(A). However there is no separate affidavit from MrMadhu supporting the contention of the assessee, neither the assessee has made any complaint to any statutory body. It is settled position of law that power to condone delay should be exercised having regard to the facts of the case, the power cannot be exercised to frustrate the substantial law of limitation as held by the Apex Court recently in the case of H. Guruswamy Vs A.Krishna Civil appeal number 317 of 2025. The Hon’ble Apex Court in yet another case of Mool Chandra v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1878, decided on 5-8-2024] has held that it is not he length of the delay rather the cause behind the delay, which is to be seen while HareesHaneefa, Kollam Page 4 of 4 condoning he delay. In the case of Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara v. Labour Court, Bhilwara, (2009) 3 SCC 525, it was opined that while deciding an application for condonation of delay the High Court ought not to have gone into the merits of the case. “Ifnegligence can be attributed to the appellant, then necessarilythe delay which has not been condoned by the Tribunal andaffirmed by the High Court deserves to be accepted. However,if no fault can be laid at the doors of the appellant and causeshown is sufficient then we are of the considered view that boththe Tribunal and the High Court were in error in not adoptinga liberal approach or justice-oriented approach to condone thedelay”. In the present case the cause responsible for the delay would not fall under the ambit of “reasonable cause”. Therefore, we are not convinced with the reasons given by the assessee for condonation of appeal, and hence, the present appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation”.
6.2. Following the above, we hereby dismiss this appeal.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as barred by limitation.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd June, 2025