2013 (3) TMI 630 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - Non sufficient reasons and since the delay is inordinate delay of 328 days and 158 days.

Summary

Issues:
Late filing of appeals for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, condonation of delay, reasons for delay, negligence of previous Chartered Accountant (C.A.), applicability of judgments regarding delay in filing appeals.

Analysis:

1. Late filing of appeals: The appeals for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 were filed late by the assessee, with delays of 328 days and 158 days respectively. The assessee submitted affidavits seeking condonation of the delay, attributing the delay to the negligence of the previous Chartered Accountant (C.A.) and lack of advice regarding further appeals.

2. Condonation of delay: The assessee claimed that the previous C.A. did not advise on filing further appeals after the initial appeals were dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee failed to produce an affidavit from the C.A. or file a complaint with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) against the alleged negligence. The tribunal examined the reasons for the delay and the genuineness of the causes shown.

3. Negligence of previous C.A.: The tribunal considered the contention that the previous C.A. did not advise the assessee on further appeals. However, it was noted that the assessee did not contact the C.A. to inquire about the appeal outcomes or seek advice for the next steps. The tribunal highlighted the lack of due diligence on the part of the assessee in following up on the appeals filed before Ld. CIT(A).

4. Applicability of judgments: The tribunal analyzed the judgments cited by both sides, including the distinction between inordinate delay and delays of a few days. Referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the Third Member Bench of ITAT, Chennai, the tribunal emphasized the importance of diligence and care on the part of the assessee in matters of filing appeals and seeking professional advice.

5. Decision: After considering the submissions, the tribunal concluded that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were not sufficient. The tribunal found the delay to be inordinate and attributed it to the negligence and lack of diligence on the part of the assessee. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed both appeals as unadmitted due to the significant delays in filing the appeals.

In summary, the tribunal scrutinized the reasons for the delay in filing the appeals, assessed the negligence of the previous C.A., and evaluated the diligence of the assessee in following up on the appeal process. The tribunal emphasized the importance of due care and attention in tax matters and upheld the dismissal of the appeals due to the inordinate delays, highlighting the need for timely action and proactive engagement in legal proceedings.