2017 (11) TMI 1639 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - reasons for delay for 72 days - sufficient cause - Held that - In the present case the reason advanced by the assessee cannot be considered as good and sufficient reason to condone the delay. The reasons advanced by the assessee really show that the delay was due to the negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee. The assessee could have very well avoided the delay by exercising of due care and attention. In our opinion there exists no sufficient and good reason for delay of filing the appeal by 72 days. Therefore this kind of delay does not warrant condonation since the assessee has not shown valid reasons cause for filing the appeal belatedly by such inordinate delay of 72 days - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal
- Addition of undisclosed cash deposit in the bank account

Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal, citing a delay of 72 days due to being unaware of the disposal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The appellant claimed the delay was not wilful but due to the misplaced appellate order, which was later found to be lost track of. However, the Tribunal found the delay to be a result of negligence on the part of the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that to condone such a delay, the appellant must prove diligence and absence of negligence. Citing the case of Ramlal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., the Tribunal highlighted the need for a cause beyond the appellant's control. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the reasons provided did not constitute a sufficient cause for condonation, as the delay was attributed to the appellant's negligence and inaction.

Addition of Undisclosed Cash Deposit:
The case involved an appeal by the assessee against the order of assessment for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee had declared an income of ?4,40,330/-, but an amount of ?32,17,717/- was added as an undisclosed cash deposit into the bank account with IDBI during the assessment. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed this addition, leading to the appellant filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant contended that detailed explanations and evidences were not considered by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which affected the merit of the order. The appellant also argued that certain cash deposits were supported by explanations that were overlooked. However, the Tribunal focused solely on the delay issue and dismissed the appeal without delving into the merits of the addition of the undisclosed cash deposit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, emphasizing the need for valid reasons beyond negligence for condonation of such delays. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the addition of the undisclosed cash deposit, as the focus remained on the procedural issue of delay.