2018 (10) TMI 1715 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 132 days - sufficient cause of delay - HELD THAT - In the present case, the assessees justified the delay only with condonation petitions which are very casual and general in nature. Being so, there was no proper explanation given by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeals. In our opinion, there is no good and sufficient reason to condone the delay. Accordingly, we decline to condone the delay of 132 days in filing the two appeals and the appeals are dismissed in limine. In view of the above, we refrain from going into other grounds of appeals raised before us. - Both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed as unadmitted.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals for condonation of operational income deduction including interest income from surplus funds with District Co-operative Banks and Sub Treasuries.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by different assesses against orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2014-15. The issues being common, the appeals were clubbed together. The assessees contended that the society sought deduction of operational income, including interest income from surplus funds with District Co-operative Banks and Sub Treasuries. The appeals were filed with a delay of 132 days, initially seeking condonation for 139 days but later clarified the actual delay. The reasons cited for the delay included seeking legal opinion, health problems, and negotiations. However, the explanations provided were deemed insufficient as they lacked concrete evidence, such as medical certificates, to support the claimed sickness of the Secretaries of the Societies.

The Tribunal referred to legal precedents emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between inordinate delays and delays of a few days in condonation cases. It highlighted that the law supports those who are vigilant and not those who neglect their duties. The Tribunal noted that in this case, despite a delay of 132 days, the assessees failed to specify reasons for the Secretaries' lapses in their official duties. Without adequate details, the delay could not be condoned based solely on sympathy or benevolence. The Tribunal stressed that to condone a delay, it must be proven beyond doubt that the assessees were diligent and not negligent. Citing legal judgments, the Tribunal reiterated that sufficient cause for delay must be beyond the control of the party invoking the provisions. Negligence or lack of bona fide intentions cannot be excused, and seekers of justice must approach with clean hands.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found the explanations provided by the assessees in their condonation petitions to be casual and lacking specificity. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay of 132 days in filing the appeals, leading to the dismissal of both appeals as unadmitted. The Tribunal decided not to address other grounds raised in the appeals due to the dismissal based on the delay issue. The orders were pronounced on October 30, 2018, in open court.