2019 (11) TMI 1442 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 546 days in filing - assessee has stated that due to his health problem, the appeal could not be filed in time - HELD THAT - There is nothing on record in support of the prayer so taken by the assessee in terms of his health problem either in the form of any medical reports from the registered medical practitioner or from any recognized hospital. The assessee has merely filed a one liner application on a plain paper and not even an affidavit has been filed in support of his prayer. Merely basis one line application so filed by the assessee which is not supported by any medical report or an affidavit and thus remain unsubstantiated, we are unable to accede to the request of the assessee for condoning the delay. The delay cannot be condoned merely because the assessee's case calls for sympathy or merely out of benevolence. It is not a matter of delay of few days rather the delay has happened for 546 days. Therefore, it is incumbent on part of the assessee to come forward and explain the circumstances which prevented him from filing the appeal in time. Appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as barred by limitation.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against orders of CIT(A) for not admitting the appeal and sustaining penalty under section 234E of the Act due to delay in filing appeals.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur involved four appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A) for the Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. The assessee challenged the non-admittance of the appeal and the penalty levied by the AO under section 234E of the Act. The delay in filing these appeals was noted to be 546 days, with the appeal presented before the Tribunal on 15.01.2019, despite the communication of the Commissioner's order being on 19.5.2017 as per the revised Form 36.

In the condonation application, the assessee cited health problems as the reason for the delay in filing the appeals. However, the ld. DR objected to the condonation application, highlighting the significant delay and lack of reasonable cause presented by the assessee. The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and found that the delay of 546 days was substantial. The assessee's claim of health problems was not supported by any medical reports or affidavits. The Tribunal emphasized that the condonation of delay requires the assessee to demonstrate diligence and absence of negligence, which was lacking in this case.

The Tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to provide sufficient justification for the delay in filing the appeals. The lack of medical evidence or compelling reasons led to the dismissal of the appeals as barred by limitation. The Tribunal noted the consistent failure on the part of the assessee, as even the ld. CIT(A) had rejected the appeal due to inordinate delay. Therefore, based on the lack of diligence and inaction on the part of the assessee, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the assessee.

In summary, the judgment emphasized the importance of providing valid reasons and evidence to condone delays in filing appeals. The lack of substantial justification, such as medical reports or compelling circumstances, led to the dismissal of the appeals as barred by limitation. The Tribunal highlighted the need for diligence and prompt action in legal proceedings to avoid adverse outcomes.