2014 (7) TMI 1294 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - sufficient cause for delay - belated restoration application was allowed and when the matter was listed again before the Court on 12.05.2014 nobody appeared for the appellant and the matter stood adjourned - HELD THAT - Having gone through the application twice over we are satisfied that it remains vague and incomplete on material particulars and in any event does not make out any sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Appeal was filed by the assessee on 24.09.2009 against the impugned order dated 17.04.2009 which was time barred by 25 days. However neither the particulars of the said appeal are stated nor the ultimate result thereof. This much is from paragraph 2 and 3 of the application. However the contents of the paragraph 4 are to the effect that nobody could keep a track on the events and hence the due date of filing the present appeal lapsed What is meant by these submissions remains anybody s guess. Then an appeal was filed at Jaipur Bench in the year 2011 which was withdrawn on 16.07.2012. Even thereafter this appeal has been filed at Jodhpur only on 03.10.2012. Viewed from any angle we do not find even a semblance of cause to entertain this grossly belated appeal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Request for adjournment in the case.
2. Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
4. Vagueness and incompleteness of the condonation of delay application.
5. Entertaining a belated appeal.
6. Pending miscellaneous application before the ITAT.

Analysis:

1. The Court refused a request for adjournment in the case, noting that the appeal had been dismissed in default previously, and despite a belated restoration application being allowed, the appellant failed to appear when the matter was listed again, leading to the request for further adjournment being declined.

2. The assessee sought to maintain an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order passed by the ITAT for the Assessment Year 2004-05.

3. The appeal, filed after a delay of 1110 days, was reportedly time-barred by nearly three and a half years. The application seeking condonation of delay cited various reasons for the delay, including a decision to file a Miscellaneous Application first, leading to a belief that further action would be advised, resulting in the delay in filing the appeal.

4. The Court found the condonation of delay application to be vague and incomplete on material particulars, lacking sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

5. Despite the reasons provided in the application for the delay in filing the appeal, the Court did not find any valid cause to entertain the grossly belated appeal, especially considering the multiple delays and lack of clarity in the submissions made.

6. The appellant's counsel mentioned a pending miscellaneous application before the ITAT, but the Court did not comment on this matter, leaving it open for the concerned parties to pursue appropriately and in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Court rejected the application seeking condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal due to the significant delay and lack of substantial reasons provided to justify the belated filing.