2017 (8) TMI 1660 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 744 days - sufficient cause for delay - HELD THAT - A liberal view ought to be taken in terms of delay of few days. However, when there is inordinate delay, one should be very cautious while condoning the delay. The delay of 744 cannot be condoned simply because the assessee s case is hard and calls for sympathy or merely out of benevolence to the party seeking relief. In granting the indulgence and condoning the delay, it must be proved beyond the shadow of doubt that the assessee was diligent and was not guilty of negligence whatsoever. The sufficient cause within the contemplation of the limitation provision must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the provisions. Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd 1961 (5) TMI 54 - SUPREME COURT has held that the cause for the delay in filing the appeal which by due care and attention could have been avoided cannot be a sufficient cause within the meaning of the limitation provision. Where no negligence, nor inaction, or want of bona fides can be imputed to the assessee a liberal construction of the provisions has to be made in order to advance substantial justice. Seekers of justice must come with clean hands. In the present case, the reasons advanced by the assessee do not show any good and sufficient reason to condone the delays. The delays are not properly explained by the assessee. There is no reason for condoning such delay in this case. The delay is nothing but negligence and inaction of the assessee which could have been very well avoided by the exercise of due care and attention. Though the assessee has said that the divorce proceedings initiated by her spouse were the reason for delay in filing these appeals, there is no iota of evidence of such proceedings before any Court. Hence, there exists no sufficient or good reason for condoning inordinate delays of more than 744 days in filing appeal before us. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed as barred by limitation. We accordingly decline to condone the delay of 744 days, and dismiss these six appeals of the assessee as barred by limitation.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Validity of assessments under Section 153C read with Section 144.
3. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 144.
4. Confirmation of additions by the CIT(A).
5. Levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals:
The primary issue was the condonation of a 744-day delay in filing the appeals. The assessee attributed the delay to severe mental pain and agony due to divorce proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that only marginal delays can be condoned, not inordinate delays. The Tribunal cited the case of Jt. CIT v. Tractors & Farms Ltd. (104 ITD 149), distinguishing between normal and inordinate delays. The Tribunal concluded that the reasons provided by the assessee did not constitute "sufficient cause" and were indicative of negligence and inaction. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay, dismissing the appeals as barred by limitation.

2. Validity of assessments under Section 153C read with Section 144:
The assessee challenged the validity of assessments made under Section 153C read with Section 144, arguing that the conditions for invoking Section 144 were not satisfied. The Tribunal noted that the assessments were completed based on non-compliance by the assessee, who failed to submit necessary documents and explanations despite multiple notices. The Tribunal upheld the assessments, finding no procedural irregularity.

3. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 144:
The assessee contended that the AO lacked jurisdiction under Section 144 as the necessary conditions were not met. The Tribunal examined the procedural history, noting that the assessee did not respond to notices and failed to provide required information. The Tribunal concluded that the AO was justified in completing the assessments under Section 144 due to the assessee's non-compliance.

4. Confirmation of additions by the CIT(A):
The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions without proper inquiry or basis. The Tribunal reviewed the additions, which included fresh capital introduction, unsecured loans, low drawings, and unaccounted investments. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had acted judiciously and confirmed the additions based on available evidence. The Tribunal did not find merit in the assessee's arguments and upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

5. Levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C:
The assessee challenged the levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C. The Tribunal noted that the levy of interest was consequential to the assessments and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the interest charges. The Tribunal found no basis to interfere with the levy of interest.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed all six appeals filed by the assessee due to the inordinate delay in filing. The Tribunal upheld the validity of assessments under Section 153C read with Section 144, confirmed the jurisdiction of the AO, and supported the CIT(A)'s confirmation of additions and levy of interest. The appeals were dismissed as barred by limitation, with the Tribunal emphasizing the need for diligence and timely action in legal proceedings.