2017 (2) TMI 1445 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of the delay - inordinate delay of 3389 days - Sufficient cause of delay - HELD THAT - In this case there has been inordinate delay of about 10 years in filing the appeal. Firstly, the assessee had submitted that it was an inadvertent error. In another affidavit assessee had tried to submit that appeal papers were prepared but were not filed without any reason by the Charted Accountant. The submission is not supported for its veracity or reasoning. Furthermore, there is no rationale in allowing a person to file an appeal after ten years simply because ten years ago also he had thought of filing the appeal. There can be many reasons why a person having thought of filing an appeal may decide not to pursue the matter. Hence the contents of the second submission cannot be treated but as an afterthought. In our considered opinion the delay of 3389 days doesn't deserve to be condoned. Accordingly, we decline to condone the delay.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeal for assessment year 2001-02.
2. Request for condonation of delay.
3. Lack of cogent reasoning for delay.
4. Examination of case law for condonation of delay.
5. Decision on whether to condone the delay.

Analysis:
1. The appeal by the assessee was directed against the order of the learned CIT-A dated 01/11/2004 for assessment year 2001-02, noting that the appeal was time-barred by 3389 days.
2. The assessee sought condonation of the delay, attributing it to inadvertent error and change in personnel handling tax matters, requesting the tribunal to admit the appeal.
3. Two affidavits were submitted, one mentioning inadvertent lapse and the other detailing the discovery of appeal papers prepared 10 years ago, along with evidence of fee payment, without providing a clear reason for not filing the appeal.
4. The tribunal heard both counsels on the issue of condonation of delay, noting the lack of cogent reasoning and supporting evidence for the delay, including discrepancies in fee payment documentation.
5. Despite the assessee's reliance on case laws for condonation of delay, the tribunal found the delay of about 10 years without sufficient cause, emphasizing the need for diligence and absence of negligence in seeking relief.
6. Referring to a third member decision of ITAT Chennai, the tribunal highlighted the importance of substantial justice, diligence, and control over the cause of delay in condoning delays.
7. Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that the delay of 3389 days did not merit condonation, dismissing the appeal as time-barred based on the lack of compelling reasons for the delay.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of delay in filing the appeal, the request for condonation of delay, the assessment of reasons provided, the examination of relevant case law, and the final decision to dismiss the appeal due to the significant delay without sufficient cause.