Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, B.S.N.L. EMP C.C.S. Limited, filed two appeals before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) for A.Ys. 2019-20 and 2021-22 with significant delays of 1479 days and 524 days respectively. The assessee attributed the delay primarily to the Covid-19 pandemic and the illness of the authorized signatory. The FAA dismissed the appeals in limine, finding a substantial part of the delay (578 days for A.Y. 2019-20 and 261 days for A.Y. 2021-22) unexplained.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the FAA, noting that the assessee failed to provide cogent reasons or supporting evidence for the inordinate delay. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the FAA's refusal to condone the delay and subsequent dismissal of the appeals in limine.
Key Issues
Whether the First Appellate Authority was justified in rejecting the application for condonation of inordinate delay in filing appeals and dismissing them in limine.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
The B.S.N.L. EMP C.C.S. Limited Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(1), Guntur. No.Z.613, Chilakaluripet, Guntur. PAN:AAEAT2982P (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Smt. A. Aruna, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, SR-DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 26/03/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 15/04/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.: These two appeals filed by The B.S.N.L. EMP C.C.S. Limited No.Z.613 (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the ADDL/JCIT(A)-2, Pune (“Ld. First Appellate Authority”), both dated 29.07.2024 for the A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2021-22 respectively. Since these appeals are having identical issues and belong to the same assessee, they are heard together and one consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity.
“1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in rejecting the application filed for condonation of delay of 1479 days in filing the appeal and thus dismissing the appeal in limine. 3. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.” 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds in :
“1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.
The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in rejecting the application filed for condonation of delay of 524 days in filing the appeal and thus dismissing the appeal in limine.
Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.”
The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee had filed appeals before the Ld. first appellate authority against the separate assessment orders passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) both dated 18.06.2024 for A.Ys.
2019-20 & 2021-22 respectively. However, there was delay in filing of both the appeals before the Ld. First Appellate Authority by 1479 days in A.Y. 2019-20 and 524 days in A.Y. 2021-22. The assessee in his submission before the Ld. First Appellate Authority attributed the delay in filing of the appeal for A.Y. 2019-20 to the Covid-19 pandemic and post Covid effect due to illness of the authorised signatory. However, for A.Y. 2021-22, the delay was explained solely on account of post Covid effect due to illness of authorised signatory.
4.1 The Ld. first appellate authority after examining the reasons given by the assessee held that even after considering the reasons for delay given by the assessee, the delay of 578 days in A.Y. 2019-20 and 261 days in A.Y. 2021-22 remained unexplained. Since no justification for the delay for balance period of 578 days in A.Y. 2019-20 and 261 days in A.Y. 2021-22 was explained by the assessee, the Ld. First Appellate Authority refused to condone the delay and dismissed both the appeals in limine.
The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) reiterated the same explanation before us as put forth before the Ld. First Appellate Authority qua the delay in filing of both the appeals before the Ld. First Appellate Authority The Ld. AR failed to submit any additional reason before us qua the said delay.
Per contra, the Learned Department Representative (“Ld. DR”) relied on the decision of Ld. First Appellate Authority.
We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made by either side. It is undisputed that there was an inordinate delay in filing of these appeals before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and various Hon'ble High Courts have consistently held that while procedural law should be interpreted liberally to ensure substantial justice, inordinate delay must be justified with cogent reasons. The delay in filing of appeals without specific details and supporting evidences does not constitute a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In the present case, the assessee has not provided any explanation or reasonable cause for the unexplained delay of 578 days for A.Y. 2019-20 and 261 days for A.Y. 2021-22. Even before us, no additional material or justification has been presented by the assessee. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. First Appellate Authority in refusing to condone the delay and dismissing the appeal in limine. Accordingly, both these appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 15th April., 2025.