9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 645 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of Delay Held that - The retrospective amendment has forced the assessee to file these appeals with delay - Explanation 3C to section 43B was introduced by the Finance Act 2006 which becomes operative with effect from 1.4.2006 - The assessee must have filed the appeal within the reasonable time from 1st April 2006. Even after the amendment, the assessee has not filed the appeals within the reasonable time - The reason for delay in filing the appeal after the said amendment is not explained by the assessee - There is distinction between inordinate delay and delay of few days - there was inordinate delay in filing the appeals - the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the case of few days delay, no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach - No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard - There was no bona-fide reasons to condone the delay - The reasons given by the assessee is nothing but negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee which cannot be condoned - The assessee could have very well avoided the delay by the exercise of due care and attention - there exists no sufficient and good reasons for such an inordinate delay Decided against Assessees.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals. 2. Merits of the appeals concerning various assessment years and specific grounds raised by the assessee. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals: The primary issue in these appeals is the significant delay in filing by the assessee. The delays ranged from 1266 days to 3602 days across different assessment years. The assessee argued that the delay was primarily due to the retrospective amendment to Section 43B by the insertion of Explanation 3C, which necessitated filing appeals for the years of payment of funded interest. The assessee contended that the retrospective amendment forced them to file the appeals with delays and that they had no control or prior information about this amendment. The Tribunal, however, found this argument devoid of merit. Explanation 3C to Section 43B was introduced by the Finance Act 2006, effective from 1.4.2006. The assessee should have filed the appeals within a reasonable time from this date. The Tribunal emphasized that the delay cannot be condoned simply because the case is hard or calls for sympathy. The sufficient cause must be beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the provisions. The Tribunal found no bona fide reasons to condone the delay, citing negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as un-admitted due to the inordinate delay. 2. Merits of the Appeals: Since the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of delay, the Tribunal refrained from delving into the merits of the other grounds raised by the assessee. However, the assessee had raised several specific issues in their appeals: - Assessment Year 1995-96 (ITA No. 1543/H/2010): The assessee sought to delete the addition of late payment of PF and ESI contributions of Rs. 1,68,854/- and to admit the additional ground of payment of funded interest of Rs. 133.15 lakhs. - Assessment Year 1996-97 (ITA No. 1544/H/2010): The assessee prayed to delete the addition of notional interest of Rs. 49,65,099 on loans given to sister concerns and prior period income of Rs. 78,703/-. They also sought to admit the additional ground of payment of funded interest of Rs. 258.05 lakhs. - Assessment Year 1999-2000 (ITA No. 1618/H/2010): The assessee requested to delete the addition of payment of royalty of Rs. 3 lakhs and to admit additional grounds in respect of donations of Rs. 44,04,176/- and payment of funded interest of Rs. 309.6 lakhs. - Assessment Year 1997-98 (ITA No. 76/H/2011): The assessee filed an appeal against the rejection of a rectification petition, seeking the allowance of payment of funded interest of Rs. 244.07 lakhs. The Tribunal noted that since the appeals were unadmitted due to the delay, they did not go into the merits of these grounds. The focus remained on the procedural aspect of whether the delay could be condoned, which was ultimately decided against the assessee. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the assessee due to the inordinate delay in filing, emphasizing the importance of timely action and the absence of sufficient cause for such delays. The merits of the individual grounds raised in the appeals were not considered due to the procedural dismissal.
|
