Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant filed an appeal against the CIT(A) order for AY 2015-16 with a delay of 343 days. The appellant sought condonation, claiming unawareness of the CIT(A) order, which was served via email and only discovered by their Tax Consultant in December 2024.
Held
The Tribunal found the appellant's reasons for delay general and unconvincing, noting the lack of specific details regarding the consultant or email. Citing the importance of the law of limitation as established by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal concluded that it was not a fit case for condoning the delay.
Key Issues
The key issue was whether the appellant's explanation for the 343-day delay in filing the appeal was sufficient to warrant condonation of delay under the principles of the law of limitation.
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
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM
O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 13.11.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.
At the outset we find that there is a delay in filing the appeal by 343 days. The appellant had filed petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the appellant had no knowledge of the order passed by the CIT(A) as the order was served through email which went unnoticed by the appellant. It is only when the Tax Consultant of the appellant searched the portal in December 2024 the appellant had come to know
I have perused the averments made in the petition seeking condonation of delay. The averment that the appellant had no knowledge of the order passed by the CIT(A) is general in nature. The appellant also not given details as to the name of the Tax Consultant, who searched the portal in December, 2024 and also the email ID on which the order of the CIT(A) was served. It is not possible to believe that the appellant had not searched the email for one year. The ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Jak Communications (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer WP No. 35453 of 2023 is not applicable, as it was a case of no service of order though email. Thus, I find that the reasons offered for delay in filing the appeal are not convincing. The appellant has not explained the reasons for the delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. & Ors. v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) [2024] 4 S.C.R. 241 : 2024 INSC 286 us under: - “7. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the legal maxim “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium” i.e. it is for the general welfare that a period of limitation be put to litigation. The object is to put an end to every legal remedy and to have a fixed period of life for every litigation as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. Even public policy requires that there should be an end to the litigation otherwise it would be a dichotomy if the litigation is made immortal vis-a-vis the litigating parties i.e. human beings, who are mortals.” Therefore, it is not a fit case for condonation of delay.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12th February, 2025. 5.