2014 (8) TMI 639 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation application rejected - Delay of six years, eight months and three days - Held that - The Tribunal refutes the receipt of appeal at the office of the Tribunal - assessee does not have any acknowledgement, to prove that it was received in the office of the Tribunal - The reasons stated for condonation of the long delay of more than six years was found to be not satisfactory and the delay condonation application was dismissed by the Tribunal there was no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal revenue is also entitled to some finality in the matters, when the assessee has by his own default failed to institute a proper appeal and prosecute the same diligently before the Tribunal - there are no sufficient reasons to deem the highly belated appeal to be in time - When the assessment of the assessee remained unchallenged and for that sole reason acquired finality; no question arises of refund Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Appeal dismissal due to delay condonation application denial, lack of evidence for appeal receipt, comparison with other partners' appeals, interference with Tribunal's order, request for rectification, reliefs sought in writ petition.

In this judgment by the Kerala High Court, the petitioner's appeal was dismissed due to the denial of the delay condonation application, which was filed six years, eight months, and three days late. The petitioner claimed to have remitted the appeal fees and dispatched the appeal through courier, but the Tribunal refuted receiving it, and the petitioner lacked any proof of receipt. The Court found the reasons for the delay unsatisfactory and upheld the Tribunal's dismissal of the condonation application.

The Court noted that there was no evidence of the appeal being received at the Tribunal, and even if the petitioner's contentions were accepted, it was their duty to follow up on the appeal's status after dispatch, especially without receiving an acknowledgment for over six years. The petitioner's comparison with other partners' appeals, which were considered timely, was deemed irrelevant as those appeals were filed within the stipulated time frame and diligently pursued, unlike the petitioner's belated appeal.

Ultimately, the Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's order, emphasizing the need for finality in legal matters and highlighting the petitioner's failure to diligently pursue the appeal. The Court also dismissed the petitioner's request for rectification, noting its untimeliness and lack of attention from the Department despite notice. The reliefs sought in the writ petition, including re-doing the assessment in line with another order, deeming the belated appeal as filed in time, refunding tax, and compensatory costs, were all rejected due to lack of merit and insufficient grounds for consideration.

In conclusion, the writ petition was dismissed, and each party was directed to bear their own costs, as the Court found no valid reason to grant the reliefs sought by the petitioner based on the circumstances presented in the case.