2017 (5) TMI 1516 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - reopening of assessment - Held that - The condonation petition does not inspire any confidence. It does not specify the name of the employee receiving the impugned order who would presumably only be a responsible person in the company. In fact receipt of an important document as in the instant case which is served either personally (by hand) or through registered post is normally done by affixing a stamp bearing the name and address of the receiving organization. Then it is not explained as to why the same was not conveyed to the person handling the Income Tax matters in the company who remains again unspecified without also stating the date when he left the company s employment or to the person who was looking into or assigned the work in relation to the Income Tax matters in his absence. The company is represented by a counsel both before the Assessing Officer (AO) as well as the ld. CIT(A) who could in any case be approached so that he could certainly fill in the breach and who is to be in any case approached as in fact claimed to have been subsequently. The condonation petition is in vague terms sans any affidavits by the concerned employees even whose names are not spelt out much less by any supporting materials or evidences in relation to the delay. The same thus is clearly a case of laches and as it would appear a result of an after-thought. The appeal is accordingly not admitted.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against dismissal of assessment, delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, admission of appeal, merits of the case

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai, the appeal was filed by the Assessee against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissing the assessee's appeal contesting its assessment under section 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2004-05. The appeal was delayed by 155 days and the condonation petition accompanying the appeal cited reasons for the delay, including an employee receiving the order without notifying the company and the subsequent discovery of the order during file clearance in April 2014. The Assistant Member noted that the condonation petition lacked specific details such as the name of the employee who received the order and the handling of income tax matters within the company. The petition was considered vague and lacking supporting evidence, leading to the conclusion that the delay was a case of laches and an afterthought, resulting in the appeal not being admitted. The Assistant Member also briefly touched upon the merits of the case, highlighting that the issue of delay was not raised during a previous hearing on merits, citing legal precedents to support the decision not to admit the appeal. The appeal was ultimately dismissed as un-admitted on May 19, 2017 in Chennai.

Regarding the delay in filing the appeal, the Assistant Member scrutinized the condonation petition and found it lacking in essential details and supporting evidence. The absence of specific information about the employee receiving the order, the handling of income tax matters within the company, and the vague nature of the petition led to the conclusion that the delay was unjustified and not bona fide, resulting in the appeal not being admitted. The Assistant Member emphasized the importance of providing concrete and verifiable reasons for delay when seeking condonation.

On the issue of admission of the appeal, the Assistant Member considered the arguments presented by both parties and evaluated the merits of the case. Despite a previous hearing on merits where the delay in filing the appeal was not raised, the Assistant Member referenced legal precedents to support the decision not to admit the appeal due to the unjustified delay. The importance of timely raising procedural issues during hearings was highlighted, emphasizing the need for parties to bring all relevant matters to the attention of the tribunal at the appropriate stages of the proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai focused on the delay in filing the appeal, the insufficiency of the condonation petition, and the decision not to admit the appeal based on the lack of substantiated reasons for the delay. The judgment underscored the significance of providing specific details and supporting evidence when seeking condonation of delay and the importance of addressing procedural issues promptly during legal proceedings to ensure a fair and efficient adjudication process.