2022 (5) TMI 1529 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - reasons for the delay of 1125 days by stating that the assessee received the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on 30.09.2017 which was handed over by her to the auditor - assessee was under the belief that auditor have filed the appeal before the Tribunal in time though it was not done so by the auditor fact of which came to her knowledge at a later point of time - HELD THAT - Shri. Dhool Chand Varma FCA appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. AO in the assessment proceedings. From the order of Ld. CIT(A) it is noted that Shri. K. Meenakshi Sundaram ITP appeared before the first appellant authority and represented the matter of the assessee in appeal. Even before us the assessee is represented by Shri K. Meenakshi Sundaram ITP. These facts show that for attending the proceedings before the authorities below competent professional engagements were made by the assessee for effective representation of her case at various stages. The general and vague reasons given to explain the delay of more than 3 years by passing the buck on the shoulders of auditor does not speak about the reasonable and responsible approach in handling the matter wherein the tax demand is involved. With the demand of such an amount remaining outstanding on the part of the tax payer there is a reasonable expectation of being vigilant and responsible in taking up these matters in a diligent way. The facts so narrated and explained by assessee through the petition for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal do not convince us in order to proceed us to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The facts otherwise noted from the assessment order and the first appellant authority in respect of professional representation before the authorities below do not favour the assessee in order to support the contentions made in the petition for condonation of delay. Accordingly we dismiss the petition for condonation of delay filed by the assessee in the instant appeal. Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay of 1125 days in filing the appeal, Condonation of delay, Responsible behavior of the assessee, Professional representation before authorities, Dismissal of the appeal.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai arose from an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, against the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeal was found to be delayed by 1125 days, rendering it barred by limitation. The assessee sought condonation of the delay, attributing it to the auditor's failure to file the appeal in time due to medical reasons and subsequent demise. The Ld. Senior DR opposed the condonation, emphasizing the lack of responsible behavior on the part of the assessee for such a significant delay.

The Tribunal considered the reasons presented for the delay and examined the conduct of the assessee in handling the matter. It was noted that competent professionals were engaged by the assessee for representation before the tax authorities at various stages. However, the Tribunal found the explanations provided for the delay to be general and vague, shifting the blame onto the auditor without demonstrating a responsible approach towards the substantial tax demand involved. The Tribunal highlighted that rules of limitation aim to prevent dilatory tactics and ensure prompt action to seek remedies. Despite the professional representation engaged by the assessee in previous proceedings, the Tribunal was not convinced by the reasons put forth for the delay, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the petition for condonation of delay.

The Tribunal emphasized the importance of being vigilant and responsible in tax matters, especially when a significant tax demand is at stake. The decision to dismiss the appeal was based on the lack of convincing arguments to support the condonation of the substantial delay. The judgment underscored the need for parties to adhere to the rules of limitation and handle legal matters diligently to safeguard their rights effectively. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal was primarily influenced by the failure of the assessee to provide sufficient grounds for condonation of the extensive delay in filing the appeal, despite engaging professional representation in previous proceedings. The judgment highlighted the importance of demonstrating responsible behavior and diligence in handling legal matters, especially concerning significant tax liabilities, to ensure timely and effective resolution of disputes within the legal framework.