2012 (12) TMI 815 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 54 - CIT(A) allowed the claim - assessee contested against delay in filing appeal by revenue - Held that - Where the time for referring an appeal has expired, a valuable right is secured to the respondent or the opposite party and such right ought not to be lightly disturbed as held in the case of Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. 1961 (5) TMI 54 - SUPREME COURT . The appeal preferred or made after the expiry of the prescribed period can be admitted only if the assessee satisfied the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period. As in this case the Department did not file the appeals within due time in this case and cause shown by it does not conclusively show that same is reasonable or sufficient. It was a case of no action on the part of the AO inasmuch as even after obtaining authorization from concerned CIT on 30.08.2010, the appeal was filed on 29.03.2012 and no material or evidence to justify such inordinate delay of 557 days has been adduced except taking general type of plea of oversight and pressure of overwork, Department has sought condonation of delay, which, cannot be held to be a sufficient or reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within stipulated time - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal before ITAT, Merits of the case

In this judgment, the primary issue revolves around the condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the ITAT. The department's appeal stemmed from the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding the disallowance of the assessee's claim for deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing the appeal was for 557 days, prompting the Assessing Officer to seek condonation. The department argued that there was no intentional delay and cited various decisions to support their plea. On the other hand, the counsel for the assessee opposed the condonation, emphasizing the lack of reasonable cause or documentary evidence for the delay. The judgment delves into the legal principles governing the condonation of delay, emphasizing that the right to appeal is a statutory right subject to fulfillment of conditions. It highlights that the Tribunal may admit an appeal after the prescribed period if sufficient cause is demonstrated, but this discretion is not an absolute right. The judgment scrutinizes the reasons provided for the delay, concluding that oversight and workload pressure do not constitute sufficient cause for such a significant delay. Ultimately, the delay in filing the appeal was not condoned, leading to the dismissal of the department's appeal.

Regarding the merits of the case, the CIT(A) had passed a detailed order considering all aspects, which remained unchallenged by the Department. The counsel for the assessee argued for the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s order, contending that the appeal on merits should be dismissed. The judgment acknowledges the reasoned order of the CIT(A) and the lack of rebuttal from the Department. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue on merits was dismissed. The judgment underscores the importance of fulfilling statutory requirements for filing appeals and the discretion of the Tribunal in condoning delays, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the department's appeal both on grounds of delay and merits.