9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 1481 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - appeal has been filed after 2000 days of the period of limitation and as such it is barred by limitation - reason to believe - Held that - While condoning the delay, the Court has to take into account the conduct of the parties, bonafide reasons for condonation of delay and whether such delay could easily be avoided by the appellant acting with normal care and caution. In this case during the course of hearing it was inquired from the learned counsel for the assessee as to whether after the death of his father (Shri Brijlal Jhamnani) the assessee has filed the returns of income for the subsequent assessment years i.e. 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 or not? In reply, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has filed all the returns of income with the department. In view of this fact, after the death of father of the assessee on 18.6.2010, the assessee did not care to look into this appeal. Therefore, in our opinion, conduct of the assessee is not bonafide and there is no reason to condone the delay.
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal. 2. Condonation of delay. Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Filing the Appeal: The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order dated 23.2.2010 of the CIT, Ujjain, passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act. However, the appeal was filed after 2000 days of the period of limitation, making it barred by limitation. 2. Condonation of Delay: The assessee argued that the delay was due to a "mere lack of knowledge" and the illness and subsequent death of his father, who was involved in the proceedings. The assessee submitted an affidavit requesting the condonation of delay, citing various judicial precedents to support his case for a liberal and pragmatic approach in condoning the delay. The precedents cited by the assessee included: - Veda Bai Allas Vaijayanati Bai Baburao Patil and Others (2002): The Supreme Court held that the court should adopt a pragmatic approach and that the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction to condone the delay. - Sujata Verma vs. Income Tax Officer (2012): The ITAT Indore held that a delay of more than 13 years in filing the appeal should be condoned to prevent a meritorious matter from being dismissed at the threshold. - Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. (1979): The Supreme Court held that there is no maxim that everyone knows the law. - Hardayal Charitable & Education Trust vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2013): The court held that the assessee’s mistake in filing a common appeal instead of two separate appeals was a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. - Malwa Concrete Udhyog (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (2014): The court held that provisions for condonation of delay are not penal in nature and should be construed liberally if a reasonable cause is made out. Opposition to Condonation: The learned DR opposed the application, arguing that under the Limitation Act, each day's delay must be explained, which the assessee failed to do. Therefore, the appeal deserved summary dismissal. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Balwant Singh vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors., which discussed the principles of 'condonation of delay' and 'sufficient cause'. The Supreme Court emphasized that while the term 'sufficient cause' should receive a liberal construction, it must fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the concerned party. The Court must consider the conduct of the parties, bona fide reasons for the delay, and whether such delay could have been avoided by exercising due care and attention. The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed returns of income for subsequent assessment years after his father's death, indicating that he did not care to look into the appeal. This conduct was deemed not bona fide, and there was no sufficient reason to condone the delay. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay and, consequently, the appeal itself for being barred by limitation. Pronouncement: The judgment was pronounced in open Court on 5.9.2016.
|
