Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a partner/director of M/s. Phoenix Infra Estate International Ltd., did not file his return of income. The Assessing Officer determined the total income at Rs. 48,37,800. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who upheld the order. The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was in jail until 2019 and the appeal was filed in 2024, resulting in a delay of 2393 days. The assessee's explanation for the delay was not satisfactory, and the Tribunal declined to condone it, citing a Supreme Court judgment.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned considering the assessee's circumstances and the reasons provided.
Sections Cited
143(3), 153A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY
ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. : These five appeals are filed by the Assessee against the respective orders of the learned CIT(A)-3, Nagpur, relating to assessment years 2007-2008, 2009- 2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 & 2012-2013.
Since common issues involved in all these appeals, these appeals were together and are being disposed of by 2 ITA.Nos.471 to 475 /NAG./2024 this single consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. Both the parties agreed that the decision taken in the assessment year 2007–08 be applicable for the remaining assessment years. We, therefore, take up ITA.No.471/NAG./2024 as “lead” appeal.
ITA.No.471/NAG./2024 – A.Y. 2007–08:
Briefly, stated facts of the case, are that the assessee is a partner/Director of M/s. Phoenix Infra Estate International Ltd. He did not file his return of income. The case of the assessee has been selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer after following due procedure under the Income Tax Act, 1961, determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.48,37,800, vide order dated 26/03/2044 passed u/sec. 143(3) r/w section 153A of the Act.
On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the learned CIT(A) turned down the request of the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal.
3 ITA.Nos.471 to 475 /NAG./2024 During the course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, at the very set, submitted that the instant appeal has been filed before the Tribunal with a delay of 2393 days. He submitted that the assessee in Jail up-to 2019 and, therefore, he was in pell-mell condition in appearing before the Trial Court for applying bail and attending Court. Ultimately, the assessee got the bail in the year 2019. He submitted that the assessee did not have knowledge about the intricacies of the Income Tax Act and procedure. As soon as he received notice from the Department, immediately, the assessee contacted Chartered Accountants, Advocate etc., to take further action in the matter and accordingly, the present appeal has been filed before the Tribunal with a delay of 2393 days. He submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is neither willful, wanton nor deliberate. He submitted that the assessee has got fair chances to succeed in his appeal and, therefore, he prayed that the delay of 2393 days may please be condoned in the interest of substantial justice and pleaded that the appeal may be decided on merits.
4 ITA.Nos.471 to 475 /NAG./2024 The Learned DR on the other hand strongly relied on the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that the assessee could not explain the day-to-day delay and, therefore, pleaded before the Tribunal that the Tribunal must not encourage such long delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and the Tribunal condones such long delays, it will become a routine for the assessees and approach the Tribunal very casually. He submitted that in the instant appeal, more particularly, the assessee could not explain his day-to-day in filing the appeal and, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal should not condone the delay.
We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record. We find that admittedly the assessee was in Jail up-to the year 2019 and the instant appeal has been filed before the Tribunal in the year 2024. Thus, there was a delay of 2393 days i.e., more than 5 years. Normally, the court/Tribunal will take a lenient view while condoning the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merits. However, in the instant appeal, there is an inordinate delay of 2393 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee as soon as he came
5 ITA.Nos.471 to 475 /NAG./2024 out of bail in the year 2019 very well can file an appeal before the Tribunal, for which, 2393 days are not at all required. Thus, we find that the assessee was failed to explain day-to-day to the satisfaction of the Bench. In this connection, we reiterate the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (died) vs. Special Deputy Collector (LA) in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31248 of 2018 dated 08.04.2024 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the order of the Hon’ble High Court in not condoning the delay of 5-6 years in filing the appeal before it, after considering the various Judgments for condoning the delay. We, therefore, taking the strength from the support of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (supra), disinclined to condone the delay of 2393 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no.471/Nag./2024, for A.Y. 2007–08 is dismissed on this ground alone.
Same order to follow for the remaining appeals ITA.Nos.472, 473, 474 & 475/Nag./2024 for the assessment years 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12 & 2012–13. Accordingly,
6 ITA.Nos.471 to 475 /NAG./2024 , 473, 474 & 475/Nag./2024 of the assessee are dismissed.