2015 (1) TMI 1073 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - 1100 days - sufficient cause - Held that - In the present case, we find that the appellants have been lackadaisical in their approach and in a nonchalant manner they have tried to seek condonation of delay. The Supreme Court in the decision Esha Bhattacharjee V. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur, Nafar Academy and others, 2015 (1) TMI 1053 - SUPREME COURT has deprecated such practice of showing leniency in condoning the delay. The parameters laid down by the Supreme Court when not to condone delay get squarely attracted to the facts of the present case and we find no reason to condone the delay and the Tribunal was correct in dismissing the appeal on that score. The plea of illness, payment of tax at some point of time, adjustment of payment before the Sub-Court, Kancheepuram are all matters on merit. That stage has not come. In any event, we are not inclined to go into such issue, as we are now concerned only with the plea of condonation of delay of approximately more than 1100 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal in each one of the case. A faint plea has been made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that attachment orders have not been served on the appellants and therefore, there is a breach of law and the said issue has not been raised and considered by the Tribunal. The appellants can agitate this issue before an appropriate forum, if legally permissible. At present, we are only concerned with the issue of condonation of delay and this Court, after detailed consideration, finds that the appellants have not shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-said decision when not to condone delay gets attracted to the facts of the present case. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in declining to condone the delay of 1100 days in filing the appeal.
2. Whether the Tribunal failed to appreciate the reasons stated in the affidavit filed by the appellant.
3. Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the "sufficient cause" for the delay.
4. Whether the Tribunal's decision was perverse, especially after granting interim relief and overlooking an earlier decision of another Bench.
5. Whether the Tribunal considered the submissions made by the appellant's counsel at the time of argument.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing Appeal:
The appellants filed appeals against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which declined to condone a delay of 1100 days. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals on the ground that the explanation given for the delay was untenable. The appellants argued that the delay was due to the seizure of original documents by the Income Tax Department and the illness of Mr. E.V. Perumalsamy Reddy, who underwent bypass surgery and was under treatment for diabetes and hypertension from November 2010 to November 2013. The Tribunal found the explanation insufficient and unsupported by evidence, noting that the medical certificate provided appeared to be an afterthought.

2. Reasons Stated in the Affidavit:
The appellants provided an affidavit explaining the delay, citing the seizure of documents and Mr. Reddy's illness. They argued that they were unable to mobilize funds for tax payment due to the seizure and Mr. Reddy's health condition. However, the Tribunal found that the appellants had knowledge of the proceedings and could have pursued legal remedies during the treatment period. The Tribunal noted that the explanation lacked credibility and was not supported by sufficient evidence.

3. Sufficient Cause for Delay:
The Tribunal assessed the "sufficient cause" for the delay and found it lacking. The medical certificate provided by the appellants did not convincingly explain the delay, and there was no evidence of continuous treatment or serious illness that would have prevented the appellants from filing the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellants failed to act with due diligence and did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

4. Perverse Decision and Interim Relief:
The appellants argued that the Tribunal's decision was perverse, especially after granting interim relief and overlooking an earlier decision of another Bench. The Tribunal dismissed this argument, stating that the explanation for the delay was not credible. The Tribunal's focus was on the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delay, rather than the interim relief or earlier decisions.

5. Consideration of Submissions by Counsel:
The appellants contended that the Tribunal did not consider the submissions made by their counsel. However, the Tribunal's order indicated that it had reviewed the case file and the submissions made. The Tribunal concluded that the delay was not satisfactorily explained and dismissed the appeals accordingly.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no substantial question of law. The Court noted that the appellants failed to provide a credible explanation for the delay and that the medical records did not support the claim of serious illness. The Court emphasized the importance of acting with due diligence and found that the appellants' lackadaisical approach did not warrant condonation of the delay. The appeals were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.