2017 (4) TMI 1470 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 312 days - Sufficient cause for delay - HELD THAT - Assessee has not given any plausible reasons for condoning the huge delay of 312 days in the said Application and Affidavit. Assesse has also not filed any evidence as per the averments made by the assessee in the Application for condonation of delay. We find considerable cogency in the contentions raised by the Ld. CIT(DR) that before the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee was represented by a qualified/Competent Advocate, hence, the question of ignorance of law and bonafide belief does not arise. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are unable to condone the huge delay of 312 days in filing the present Appeal. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act:
The appeal was filed against the Order dated 24.3.2015 passed by the Ld. CIT(Central), New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2010-11. The grounds raised by the assessee primarily challenged the jurisdiction of the Ld. CIT under Section 263, arguing that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The issues raised included the explanation of capital contribution, source of cash deposits, genuineness of cash discounts, and TDS deduction. The Ld. CIT was accused of preempting the assessing officer's quasi-judicial function. The tribunal heard both parties and considered the contentions. The assessee sought condonation of a 312-day delay in filing the appeal, citing ignorance of law and bonafide belief as reasons.

2. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The tribunal carefully reviewed the Application for Condonation of Delay and the Affidavit submitted by the assessee. The assessee argued that the delay was unintentional and due to ignorance of the law. However, the Ld. CIT(DR) opposed the condonation, stating that the assessee was represented by a qualified advocate before the lower authorities, negating the claim of ignorance. The tribunal found that the reasons presented by the assessee were not sufficient to justify the significant delay of 312 days. The tribunal concluded that the delay was not adequately explained, evidence was lacking, and the grounds for condonation were not convincing. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred.

In conclusion, the tribunal's decision focused on the jurisdictional issues under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act and the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The tribunal found the reasons provided for condonation insufficient and dismissed the appeal on the grounds of being time-barred.