9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 176 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay - Addition on account of unproved sundry creditors - during the pendency of appeal assessee has taken additional ground against the dismissal of appeal by the CIT(A) being barred by limitation - Held that - It may be observed that in the authorities relied upon by the assessee, it has been held that the delay may be condoned by the courts when the same is non deliberate and when there is no gross negligence, inaction or want of due diligence or bona fide on the part of the assessee or his representative, but the case in hand, as observed is of gross negligence, inaction, want of due diligence and even no bona fides are attributable on the conduct of the assessee and as such the facts of the present case are quite distinguishable and the law cited by the assessee is not applicable in the present case. Rather the law otherwise is against the assessee as assessee has to suffer for not filing appeal within the period of limitation when it was not prevented from any sufficient cause, as the substantive right accrued in favour of the other party cannot be taken away without any reasonable ground. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the application for condonation of delay and thereby appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation. The finding of the learned CIT(A) in respect of the matter is hereby upheld. Since the order of the CIT(A) on limitation point upheld it is not necessary to adjudicate on other issue on merit as the same is rendered academic - appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of addition of Rs.54,55,019/- by the CIT(A) on account of unproved sundry creditors. 2. Dismissal of appeal by the CIT(A) being barred by limitation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Confirmation of Addition by the CIT(A) of Rs.54,55,019/-: The assessee, an HUF, filed its return for A.Y. 2007-08 declaring an income of Rs.1,47,714/-. During assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, the AO identified a discrepancy in the sundry creditors reported by the assessee. The assessee showed creditors at Rs.55,03,412/-, whereas the details filed indicated Rs.48,393/-. Despite several opportunities, the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for the sundry creditors. Consequently, the AO treated Rs.54,55,019/- (Rs.55,03,412 - Rs.48,393) as unexplained credits and added it to the income of the assessee. The CIT(A) upheld this addition due to the assessee's failure to furnish the required details during the assessment. 2. Dismissal of Appeal by the CIT(A) Being Barred by Limitation: The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 278 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay, citing the illness and subsequent death of the Karta's mother. The CIT(A) observed that the assessment was completed on 21.12.2009, and the appeal was filed on 15.11.2010. The death certificate indicated that the mother died on 23.12.2008, almost a year before the assessment. The CIT(A) found the reason for delay unconvincing and noted negligence, inaction, and lack of bona fides on the part of the assessee. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, relying on several judicial precedents emphasizing the importance of adhering to the statutory period for filing appeals and the lack of sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Additional Ground and New Explanation: Before the Tribunal, the assessee introduced a new explanation, claiming that the delay was due to the negligence of their tax consultant, who had advised them to cite the illness and death of the Karta's mother as the reason for the delay. The consultant had since passed away, and the assessee filed an affidavit stating the true cause of the delay. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not acted with reasonable diligence and had provided inconsistent explanations. The Tribunal emphasized that the law requires the applicant to act with reasonable diligence and provide sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The Tribunal cited various judicial precedents, including decisions from the Supreme Court and High Courts, to support its conclusion that negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee and their consultant did not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal as barred by limitation, noting the assessee's failure to provide a consistent and sufficient explanation for the delay. The Tribunal also emphasized that equitable considerations do not override the statutory requirements for filing appeals within the prescribed period. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Order Pronouncement: The order was pronounced in the open court on 17th May 2013.
|
