2014 (5) TMI 959 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay Delay of 1100 days Held that - While framing assessment in order dated 31.12.2009 in furtherance of a search conducted on 10.01.2008, the Assessing Officer had made addition of M25 lakhs as unaccounted investments - the contention about the Shri.Reddy s sudden illness November, 2010 to November, 2013 and sudden regaining of health is not supported by any evidence that she herself could not have pursued legal remedies in the treatment period - the nursing home s certificate only appears to be an after-thought exercise in absence of other details assessee fails to explain each and every day s delay from 16th November, 2013 till the date of filing the appeal as she is supposed to act with due diligence - the assessee has failed to satisfactorily explain 1100 days delay in filing of the appeal - in delay matters, liberal and lenient approach to be adopted - But there is no plausible explanation much less a satisfactory one - delay of 1100 days does not deserve to be condoned on mere asking Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Delay in filing appeals
- Condonation of delay
- Payment of admitted tax
- Medical reasons for delay

Analysis:
1. The appeals, involving four assessees for different assessment years, were filed challenging orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated between 2004-05 to 2008-09. The appeals were dismissed in limine for non-payment of admitted tax under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961.

2. The assessees filed condonation petitions citing a delay of 1100 days in filing the appeals. The lead case, ITA No.2293/Mds/2013, was taken up to address the delay issue. The appellant explained the delay due to various reasons, including health issues faced by her husband and the attachment of funds by the Tax Recovery Officer.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the condonation petition and found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory. Despite the medical certificate provided, the appellant failed to justify the 1100 days delay adequately. The Tribunal emphasized the need for due diligence in pursuing legal remedies and concluded that the delay did not merit condonation.

4. The Revenue contended that the appeals were time-barred and opposed the acceptance of the condonation petition. The Tribunal considered both parties' arguments and noted that the appellant's reasons for delay were not compelling enough to warrant condonation.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed all appeals as time-barred, emphasizing the importance of timely filing and the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay. The orders were pronounced on April 17, 2014, in Chennai, upholding the dismissal of the appeals due to the delay and laches in filing.

6. The judgment highlights the significance of adhering to procedural timelines in legal matters and the necessity of providing substantial justifications for seeking condonation of delays, especially in tax-related appeals. The decision underscores the importance of diligence and timely compliance with legal requirements to avoid adverse consequences in litigation.