2016 (8) TMI 1531 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - a delay of 338 days in filing these appeals - assessee has explained that he is busy in looking after the agriculture activity as well as was concentrating the Board Examination of his child - HELD THAT - As far as the reasons explained for monitoring the agriculture activity is concerned it is pertinent to note that the assessee is doing the business of coffee commission agent in the name and style of M/s. JNC Coffee Links and has explained the source of deposits in the Bank as the amount received from the purchasers of the Coffee and it was used for payment to seller of the coffee. Once the assessee is claiming his main and dominant activity as business of commission agent of coffee then the explanation for delay due to looking after agriculture activity is contrary to the explanation furnished by the assessee for the amount deposited in the Bank account. As regards the time devoted to the study of child for preparing the Board Examination, it is manifest from the record that the assessee has not explained when did the Board Examination of his child take place as there is an inordinate delay of 338 days and the assessee has filed these appeals after around one year from the date of receipt of the order. Therefore if the Board Examination was over in the academic year 2014-15, then after the academic year was over this explanation of the assessee is bogus and vague even if he academic year of the child was 2015-16 then the delay upto 22.4.2016 for almost one year cannot be attributed for preparation of the Board Examination. It is not a case of an ordinary delay of a month or a couple of months so that the reason explained by the assessee can be considered as a reasonable cause. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the assessee has given a vague explanation for cause of delay without specifying the definite cause or time period during which the assessee was constrained to devote his time in those activities as stated in the application for condonation of delay then the reasons explained by the assessee cannot be accepted as reasonable cause being contrary to the facts on record. Appeals of the assessee are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals for Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09, Condonation of delay, Reasonableness of cause for delay, Applicability of legal precedents.

Delay in filing appeals:
The judgment pertains to two appeals filed by the assessee against a composite order of the Commissioner of Income Tax for the Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09, with a delay of 338 days in filing the appeals. The assessee sought condonation of delay, attributing it to being an agriculturist busy with agricultural activities and child's education, preventing timely professional advice seeking.

Condonation of delay:
The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay, supported by an Affidavit explaining the cause of delay. The assessee cited personal circumstances, such as focusing on agriculture and child's education, as reasons for the delay. The assessee's representative urged leniency based on legal precedents like the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Master Katiji & Others 167 ITR 471 (SC) and Concorde of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi & Others 118 ITR 507 (SC).

Reasonableness of cause for delay:
The judgment deliberated on the reasonableness of the cause for delay. While considering the application for condonation of delay, the Court emphasized the need for a genuine and bona fide explanation. The Court scrutinized the conflicting explanations provided by the assessee, noting inconsistencies between the claimed business activities as a coffee commission agent and reasons for delay related to agriculture and child's education. The Court found the explanations vague, contradictory, and lacking specificity regarding the time period and actual constraints faced by the assessee.

Applicability of legal precedents:
The judgment analyzed the applicability of legal precedents cited by the assessee's representative. It underscored the importance of establishing a reasonable cause for delay, especially in cases of significant and abnormal delays. The Court concluded that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory cause for the delay, considering the contradictory nature of explanations and lack of clarity regarding the actual time constraints faced. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals as they were barred by limitation due to the uncondoned delay.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of presenting a genuine and specific cause for delay in filing appeals, emphasizing the need for consistency and clarity in explanations. The Court's decision to dismiss the appeals was based on the assessee's failure to establish a reasonable cause for the significant delay, despite citing personal circumstances as contributing factors.