2013 (12) TMI 245 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - sufficient cause - Held that - In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay - The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay - If a party has not acted diligently or remained inactive that cannot be treated as sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation - In the instant case the delay was on account of the fact that the impugned order was not forwarded by the Operating Office to the Taxation Department at New Delhi - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Sufficient cause

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai addressed the issue of a significant delay of 742 days in filing an appeal by the assessee company against the order passed by the Revisionary Authority under section 263. The delay was attributed to the failure of the Operating Office to forward the order to the Taxation Department at New Delhi, resulting in the appeal papers being signed and filed much later than the communication of the order. The Deputy General Manager of the company filed an affidavit explaining the delay and seeking condonation based on sufficient cause.

The assessee contended that similar delays were condoned in previous years by the ITAT Mumbai Bench, emphasizing that the delay in the current case was reasonable and should also be condoned. The counsel relied on the observations made by the Bench in a previous case, highlighting the importance of substantial justice over technicalities. On the contrary, the Departmental Representative argued that previous delays and proceedings should have alerted the assessee to act promptly, and the current delay of 742 days should not be condoned.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and referred to legal precedents regarding what constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of diligence and active pursuit of legal matters within the statutory limitation period. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had been dealing with similar issues in previous and subsequent years, questioning why they failed to ascertain the outcome of the proceedings for the year in question. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the delay in the current case was not justified and dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal by the assessee company due to the substantial delay in filing, emphasizing the necessity of acting diligently within the statutory limitation period. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely legal action and active pursuit of legal matters to avoid the bar of limitation.