9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 1390 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay of 449 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal - HELD THAT - Reasons given by the assessee in the affidavit does not come under reasonable cause for condonation of delay as prescribed under the Act and thus we reject the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. The case law relied on by assessee in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji Ors. 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT has no application to the facts of the present case. Since we have rejected the petition for condonation of delay of 449 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal the appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable and accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal. 2. Reasonable cause for the delay. 3. Application of case law for condonation of delay. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Filing the Appeal: The appeal filed by the assessee was time-barred with a delay of 449 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit detailing the reasons for the delay. 2. Reasonable Cause for the Delay: The affidavit submitted by the assessee outlined several reasons for the delay: - The order from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was received on 24.04.2019. - An appeal against the order under section 143(3) read with section 263 was filed on 14.01.2020. - The assessee approached a Chartered Accountant (C.A.), Shri T. Banusekar, in March 2020, who advised filing an appeal against the PCIT's order. - The COVID-19 lockdown caused further delays in gathering information and drafting the appeal. - The appeal was finally filed on 14.09.2020, resulting in a 449-day delay. 3. Application of Case Law for Condonation of Delay: The assessee's counsel argued for condonation of delay, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji & Ors. The Departmental Representative (DR) opposed, referencing a Tribunal decision in Mrs. Preeti Madhok v. ITO, where a similar delay was not condoned. Tribunal's Findings: - The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not initially seek advice on filing an appeal against the PCIT's order. - The affidavit from the C.A. stating he did not advise filing an appeal was considered an afterthought. - The Tribunal found no material evidence that the assessee sought advice on filing the appeal. - The cited case law, Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji & Ors., was deemed inapplicable to the present case. - The Tribunal referenced the decision in Mrs. Preeti Madhok v. ITO, emphasizing that ignorance of law is not a valid excuse, especially when the assessee was represented by professionals. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the reasons provided by the assessee did not constitute a reasonable cause for condonation of delay as prescribed under the Act. Consequently, the petition for condonation of delay was rejected, rendering the appeal not maintainable. The appeal was dismissed. Final Order: The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. The order was pronounced on 14th December 2022 at Chennai.
|
