2017 (5) TMI 1515 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - Held that - In the present appeal, the wilful negligence is established, therefore, the huge delay cannot be condoned, consequently, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not admitted.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of ?7.5 lakhs as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Addition of ?15 lakhs as unaccounted sales based on loose papers recovered during a search.
3. Delay of 1382 days in filing the appeal by the assessee and whether such delay can be condoned.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of ?7.5 Lakhs as Unexplained Money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The assessee challenged the confirmation of ?7.5 lakhs to their income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unexplained money. This amount was based on two vouchers dated 14/06/2006 and 08/06/2006, representing cash transactions. However, due to the absence of the assessee during the hearing and no adjournment petition being moved, the tribunal proceeded ex-parte and relied on the material available on record. The tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision, confirming the addition of ?7.5 lakhs as unexplained money.

2. Addition of ?15 Lakhs as Unaccounted Sales:
The assessee also contested the addition of ?15 lakhs as unaccounted sales, which was based on loose papers recovered during a search. Similar to the first issue, the tribunal noted the absence of the assessee and the lack of any adjournment petition. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision, confirming the addition of ?15 lakhs as unaccounted sales.

3. Delay of 1382 Days in Filing the Appeal and Condonation of Delay:
The tribunal noted that the appeal was time-barred by 1382 days, and the assessee had not provided any explanation for the delay. The tribunal emphasized that it was the duty of the assessee to explain the delay for each day, which was not done. The tribunal referenced the decision in the case of B.S. International (ITA No.4683/Mum/2012) and other judicial pronouncements, highlighting that the delay must be supported by sufficient and good reasons. The tribunal found that the assessee's approach was casual and negligent, and no leniency could be extended. The tribunal concluded that the delay was not beyond the control of the assessee and was a result of a conscious decision to file the appeal late. Therefore, the tribunal did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as not admitted.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the appeal on all counts. The confirmation of ?7.5 lakhs as unexplained money and ?15 lakhs as unaccounted sales was upheld due to the absence and negligence of the assessee. Additionally, the appeal was dismissed due to the inordinate delay of 1382 days in filing, which was not satisfactorily explained by the assessee. The tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed period of limitation and found no substantial reason to condone the delay.