9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 1495 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay - delay of 395 days - sufficient cause of delay - reasons mentioned for delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT are that the assessee s attention was diverted due to criminal cases and pre-occupation in the business activities - HELD THAT - In the present case the assessee could have very well avoided the delay by exercising of due care and attention at least after the month of March 2013 we are of the considered opinion that there exists no sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay of an inordinate period of 395 days we are not inclined to condone the said delay in filing the appeal before us. Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as barred by limitation.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal 2. Assessment Order and Penalty Proceedings Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal The primary issue in this case was whether the delay of 395 days in filing the appeal by the assessee could be condoned. The assessee argued that the delay was due to preoccupation with a criminal case of embezzlement and extensive business activities. The criminal case was resolved by 06/03/2013, but the delay continued beyond this date, which the tribunal found to be due to negligence. The tribunal cited several judgments to support their decision: - Ramlal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361: The Supreme Court held that delay caused by negligence or lack of due care cannot be considered "sufficient cause" under the limitation provision. - Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil, (2002) 253 ITR 798: The court emphasized a pragmatic approach, distinguishing between inordinate delays and minor delays. Inordinate delays require a more cautious approach. - JCIT Vs. Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd., (2007) 104 ITD 149 (Chennai) (TM): The Third Member Bench held that lack of sufficient and good reason for a delay of 310 days indicated negligence and inaction by the assessee. - Basawaraj & Anr. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81: The Supreme Court reiterated that "sufficient cause" should be interpreted liberally only when there is no negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides. The tribunal concluded that the reasons provided by the assessee were not convincing and did not constitute "sufficient cause" for the delay. The delay beyond March 2013 was due to negligence, and thus, the tribunal was not inclined to condone the delay. 2. Assessment Order and Penalty Proceedings The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 declaring an income of ?72,40,000/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act on 30/12/2011. The assessee was aggrieved by the assessment order and filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), who disposed of the appeal on 27/12/2012. The assessee's delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT was also linked to the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The assessee approached an advocate for the preparation of the appeal only after receiving a letter regarding the penalty proceedings on 28/01/2014. This delay was attributed to the misplacement of the CIT(A)'s order and the preoccupation with business activities. The tribunal noted that the delay could have been avoided with due care and attention, especially after the resolution of the criminal case in March 2013. The tribunal emphasized that the law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. Conclusion: The tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as barred by limitation, stating that there was no sufficient and reasonable cause for the inordinate delay of 395 days. The reasons provided by the assessee were deemed unconvincing and indicative of negligence. The tribunal's decision was pronounced in the open court on 9th September 2016.
|
