2018 (2) TMI 2106 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 246 days in filing the subject appeals - HELD THAT - We find that as per the confirmation received from the Department of posts dated 18.1.2014 the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was delivered to the assessee on 5.3.2013. The assessee has not been able to controvert the said factual position as emanating from the records. Further the averments made in the condonation application and the affidavit so filed in support thereof are self-contradictory and nowhere support the case of the assessee company. In its condonation application the assessee has stated that a copy of the order was received on 18.12.2013 and thereafter the certified copy was received on 30.12.2013. However in the subsequent affidavit dated 20.10.2015 the Director of the assessee company is still maintaining the position that they have still not received the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) Ajmer. It is clear that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 21.2.2013 has been served on the assessee on 5.3.2013 and the appeal has been filed on 6.1.2014. There is no further explanation submitted and reasonable cause shown by the assessee to explain the inordinate delay of 246 days of filing the subject appeals from date of service of the order on the assessee company. We are of the view that the submissions of the assessee company are merely self-serving statements the veracity of which are established otherwise but also there is an inordinate delay of 246 days in filing the subject appeals. The assessee in its averments has not made out any case that there was reasonable cause which being beyond the control of the assessee prevented it from filing the appeals in time before the Tribunal. The delay cannot be condoned merely because the assessee s case calls for sympathy or merely out of benevolence. The delay was due to the negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee which could have been avoided by the assessee if it had exercised due care and attention. Therefore in our opinion in the factual matrix of this case there exists no sufficient and reasonable cause for the inordinate delay of 246 days in filing the subject appeals. In coming to this finding we draw support from the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of MST Katiji 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil 2001 (7) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT and Ganga Sahai Ram Swaroop 2004 (7) TMI 78 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT . Thus cause of substantial justice would not be served by condoning the inordinate delay of 246 days in filing these appeals for which no cogent reasons have been given.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals before ITAT Jaipur.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Ajmer for the Assessment Year 2005-06 & 2006-07, with a delay of 246 days.
2. The Department of Posts confirmed that the order was delivered to the assessee on 5.3.2013, which was not disputed by the assessee.
3. The assessee claimed non-receipt of the order until 18.12.2013, but the Director later submitted an affidavit stating non-receipt.
4. The assessee filed for condonation of delay, citing the delay was due to not receiving the order and relied on a similar case by ITAT Delhi 'E' Bench.
5. The Director's affidavit reiterated non-receipt, but the delay was not adequately explained beyond negligence.
6. The Tribunal referred to various legal precedents emphasizing the need for a reasonable cause for delay and discretion in condonation.
7. The Tribunal concluded that the delay was not adequately justified, and there was no sufficient cause beyond the control of the assessee.
8. Citing Supreme Court and High Court decisions, the Tribunal rejected the condonation of delay and dismissed the appeals for Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key points regarding the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT Jaipur and the Tribunal's decision to reject the condonation of delay based on the facts and legal principles involved.