2013 (9) TMI 565 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of Delay - CIT(A) rejected the appeal on the ground of delay - appellant contended that appeal was filed before the AO by mistake, that mistake came to its notice when it contacted office of the FAA, that once mistake was noticed assessee requested the AO to transfer it to the FAA, that dealy in filing appeal was because of bona fide belief that appeal has been filed before the right forum, that FAA should have condoned the delay, that a liberal view should be take - Held that - An assessee who claimed that it had won the case at the level of the Hon ble Apex Court or was successful before the ITAT, cannot be treated an ignorant assessee - the assessee was aware that the CBDT has issued instruction with regard to stay of demand - Assessee, a corporate-assessee, filing returns of income of lacs of Rupees and assisted by highly qualified professionals cannot take shadow of umbrella of ignorance of the provisions of law - It was also not the case of the assessee that it was guided by the wrong advice of the professional or it took time to consult professionals - An individual of a small place and an ISO 9001-2000-company cannot be equated, while considering the condonation of delay. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Disallowance and addition of Rs. 55,69,138/- out of Direct and Administrative Expenses.
3. Non-grant of deduction under section 80G for donation of Rs. 10,40,000/- to Rangachary Trust.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The primary issue was the delay of more than three years in filing the appeal. The assessee argued that the appeal was mistakenly filed with the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) instead of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Upon realizing the mistake, the assessee requested the DCIT to transfer the appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the delay, stating that the assessee did not provide a sufficient explanation for the delay. The tribunal discussed the philosophy and history of the law regarding condonation of delay, emphasizing that "sufficient cause" must be shown for delays to be condoned. The tribunal cited various judgments, including those from the Supreme Court, to highlight that negligence or lack of bona fide does not constitute a sufficient cause. The tribunal concluded that the assessee's inaction and negligence over the three-year period did not justify condonation of the delay. Therefore, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal on the grounds of delay.

2. Disallowance and Addition of Rs. 55,69,138/-:
The assessee contended that the assessing officer (AO) arbitrarily disallowed and added Rs. 55,69,138/- to the total income without considering the voluminous details, including bills, vouchers, and payments made. The assessee argued that the AO's addition was based on conjectures and surmises. However, since the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of delay, the tribunal did not adjudicate on the merits of this issue.

3. Non-Grant of Deduction Under Section 80G:
The assessee claimed a deduction under section 80G for a donation of Rs. 10,40,000/- to Rangachary Trust, which the AO had not granted. Again, due to the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of delay, the tribunal did not address this issue substantively.

Conclusion:
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal due to the significant delay in filing, emphasizing that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. Consequently, the tribunal did not address the merits of the disallowance of expenses or the denial of the section 80G deduction. The appeal filed by the assessee was thus disallowed.