Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which arose from assessment orders passed under Section 143(1) for AYs 2018-19 & 2019-20. These appeals were filed with a delay of 206 days. The assessee sought condonation of this delay, attributing it to the managing partner's illness and a tax consultant's oversight due to preoccupation and a staff member's departure.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to establish 'sufficient cause' for the 206-day delay. The medical certificate provided for the partner's illness lacked supporting prescriptions or examination reports, and the consultant's explanation for oversight was not backed by cogent evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal did not find the grounds for condonation convincing.
Key Issues
Whether there was 'sufficient cause' to condone the 206-day delay in filing appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY & SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA
PER MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 23.09.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–NFAC, Delhi under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) arising out of the assessment orders dated 10.12.2019 & 06.05.2020 passed by the Income Tax Officer (CPC) Bangaluru (‘the AO’) under Section 143(1) of the Act for the Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively.
Since both the appeals relate to the same assessee, these are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order.
The appeals were initially heard on 09.05.2024 and reserved for orders. Again on 20.05.2024, the matters have been fixed for clarification due to the reason that though these appeals are barred by limitation for about 206 days, the same fact was not brought to our notice by the Learned Counsel appearing for the assessee on the last date of hearing i.e. 09.05.2024. Only during dictation of orders, it was found that both the appeals are filed late. In support of such delay, an application of condonation of delay has also been filed by the assessee in the respective appeals. Even on 20.05.2024 when the matters were taken up for clarification, the Learned AR was found to be silent on the ground of delay filing of appeals and only at our asking repeatedly, he started relying upon the applications, affidavits filed in support of such delay.
Application for condonation of delay of 206 days, affidavit affirmed by the Managing Partner and affidavit affirmed by the Tax Consultant and a medical certificate have been filed before us in the respective appeals by the appellant.
Shri V.K Mishra, the partner of the assessee M/s. Krishna Enterprises, has affirmed an affidavit on 24.11.2023, notarized in the District Court, Gurgaon. It was contended by the said partner that he had fallen sick from 05.12.2022 to 18.02.2023 and was advised to take bed rest, avoid travelling and prolong standing. In support of such contention made by the partner, a certificate issued by one Doctor Kartarya Shah, dated 18.02.2023 annexed at page No. 47 of the paper book filed before us which speaks that the assessee was under his treatment as on OPD basis starting from 05.12.2022 till the date of issuance of that particular certificate on 18.02.2023. Relevant to mention that, no medical prescription or examination report has been filed in support of illness or certificate issued by the Doctor before us. Apart from that another affidavit affirmed by one Mr. Sanjeev Saini, claimed to be the consultant of M/s. Krishna Enterprises, the appellant before us, affirmed on 24.11.2023 has been filed contending that the order impugned was handed over to him during third week of Feb’ 2023 to arrange consultant for filing appeal. Since he was preoccupied for completion of time bound income tax returns, GST Returns such fact escaped from his mind. At that time, the person responsible engaged by him left the job and the hard copy of the CIT(A) order was not found out and only upon appointing Mr. M.R Sahu, CA that too in the last week of May’ 2023, the copy of the order impugned was downloaded from the e-portal. Thereafter, the fees of filing said appeal has been paid on 10.06.2023 and the appeal was ultimately filed.
Firstly, we do not find any relevance with the affidavit affirmed by the partner of the assessee company narrating his illness during 05.12.2022 to 18.02.2023 and the affidavit filed by the consultant of the assessee company Mr. Sanjeev Saini, expressing his unableness to prefer the appeal in time due to several reasons without any supporting documents. The statement made in the affidavit filed by the appellant partner, if otherwise, to be accepted, the same requires not only the certificate but also the medical prescription, examination report which is neither filed before us nor prayed to be filed. The medical certificate filed by the assessee before us does not inspire any confidence in the absence of Dr. prescription and medical examination reports. In fact, the fact of appeals being barred by limitation has not been brought to our notice by the assessee’s counsel at the date of hearing of the matter probably due to lack of confidence found in the explanations rendered by his client in the affidavit so affirmed in support of delay.
Thus, having regard to “sufficient cause” not been able to be demonstrated by the assessee before us for delay filing of the appeals, particularly in the absence of cogent evidence in support of the affidavit, we are not inclined to accept the plea taken by the assessee for condonation of the delay.
Thus, applications for condonation of delay filed by the assessee in connection to the above appeals are dismissed. The appeals are since not admitted, these are also dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20th May, 2024.