2015 (9) TMI 951 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay rejected - appeals have been filed late by almost 12 years and the reason is stated to be that the assessee was not keeping up good health, was in severe depression due to various issues and the lenders were asking for money. - Whether CIT (Appeals)-2, Chandigarh was right in holding that the appeals filed by the assessee were barred my limitation? - Held that - In the instant case, the assessee has miserably failed to prove the sufficient cause to the effect that because of some event or circumstance arising before limitation expired, it was not possible to file appeals before the learned CIT (Appeals) within time. It is relevant to observe here that the assessee was retired from the government service after attaining the age of superannuation. He has not taken retirement on medical grounds. He has retired as Superintendent Grade-I. There is no evidence on record to show that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeals within time. Section 249(3) of the Act provides that the learned CIT (Appeals) may, on good and sufficient cause for the delay being shown, admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of limitation. Thus, the appellant/assessee has to show that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. It is well settled law that in essence, the phrase sufficient cause is not a question of principle, but is a question of fact. Hence, whether to condone the delay, or not depends upon the fact and circumstances of each case as sufficient cause for condonation of delay depends only on the fact placed by the applicant before the authority concerned. Thus, it is clear that it is required to be taken in the facts of individual case whether the said circumstances constitute a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. This in the present case the delay in filing the appeals before the learned CIT (Appeals) can not be condoned. - Decided against assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Dismissal of appeals in limine.
3. Principles of natural justice.
4. Provisions of the Income Tax Act regarding the period of limitation for filing appeals.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:

The primary issue in these appeals is whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was justified in not condoning the delay in filing the appeals by the assessee. The assessee argued that the jurisdiction to condone the delay should be exercised liberally and that the delay was due to severe depression and various family issues. The CIT(A) rejected the application for condonation of delay, stating that the reasons provided did not justify such a long delay of almost 12 years. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that there was no sufficient cause established for the delay, as required under Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act.

2. Dismissal of Appeals in Limine:

The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals in limine due to the delay in filing. The assessee contended that this dismissal was against the principles of natural justice. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had provided adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay, and the reasons provided were not supported by sufficient evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that the appeals were filed significantly late, and the reasons given did not constitute a sufficient cause for the delay.

3. Principles of Natural Justice:

The assessee argued that dismissing the appeals in limine violated the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal, however, noted that the assessee was given ample opportunity to present his case and explain the delay. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had followed due process and that the dismissal of the appeals was justified given the lack of sufficient cause for the delay.

4. Provisions of the Income Tax Act Regarding the Period of Limitation for Filing Appeals:

Section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act provides that an appeal must be presented within 30 days of the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment order. The Tribunal noted that the appeals were filed significantly beyond this period and that the reasons provided by the assessee did not justify the delay. The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents, including the decisions of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court and the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, which emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed period of limitation and the need for sufficient cause to be shown for condonation of delay.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals, concluding that the delay in filing the appeals was not justified and that the CIT(A) was correct in dismissing the appeals in limine. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed period of limitation and the need for sufficient cause to be shown for condonation of delay, in line with the provisions of the Income Tax Act and judicial precedents.

← Previous Next →