2022 (11) TMI 1318 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of about 582 days in filing the appeal by the assessee - assessee entrusted the filing of appeal before CIT(A) against the Order of Assessment to Chartered Accountant (CA) with instructions to file the appeal - assessee did not contact the CA till the AO contacted the assessee in January 2022 for recovery of outstanding demand and when he informed that the Assessee that the Assessee s appeal before CIT(A) has been dismissed - HELD THAT - Assessment Order was passed on 22.12.2017 and the papers must have been handed over to the CA for filing appeal before the CIT(A) in January 2018. It is hard to believe that till January 2022 assessee did not make any enquiry with the CA about the fate of his appeal. It is even more surprising, when it is said that even the CA did not know that the appeal was listed before CIT(A) and was dismissed for non-prosecution. From the affidavit, it appears that it is only the AO who informed the assessee in January, 2022, that the assessee s appeal before CIT(A) was dismissed. It is thus clear that there has been clear lack of diligence on the part of the assessee and therefore the delay in filing the appeal cannot be accepted as owing to reasonable cause. Hence,refuse to condone the delay in filing the appeal and dismiss the appeal as unadmitted.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-5, Bengaluru, dated 26.06.2018, relating to Assessment Year 2015-16. The delay in filing the appeal was about 582 days.

2. The assessee claimed in the affidavit for condonation of delay that the Chartered Accountant (CA) was entrusted with filing the appeal before CIT(A) against the Assessment Order dated 22.12.2017. The CA did not appear for proceedings before the CIT(A), resulting in the dismissal of the appeal on 26.06.2018. The assessee only became aware of this dismissal in January 2022 when contacted by the Assessing Officer (AO) for recovery of outstanding demand.

3. The learned Counsel for the assessee argued for the condonation of delay, emphasizing inadvertent error and unintentional oversight by the CA. However, the learned DR opposed the plea, citing the need for substantiating the delay with cogent reasons, referring to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

4. The Vice President found that the lack of diligence on the part of the assessee was evident as no enquiry was made with the CA about the appeal's status until January 2022. The Vice President noted that the AO informed the assessee about the dismissal of the appeal, indicating a clear lack of diligence on the part of the assessee. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal was not condoned, and the appeal was dismissed as unadmitted.

5. The Vice President pronounced the dismissal of the appeal in the open court, refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal due to the lack of reasonable cause for the delay. The appeal of the assessee was ultimately dismissed as unadmitted for failing to meet the required diligence standards in pursuing the appeal process.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of delay in filing the appeal and the subsequent decision regarding the condonation of delay based on the lack of diligence by the assessee in pursuing the appeal process.