2018 (8) TMI 2135 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - inordinate delay of 246 days in filling appeal - HELD THAT - The delay cannot be condoned merely because the assessee s case calls for sympathy or merely out of benevolence. For the exercise of discretion in condoning the delay it must be established beyond the shadow of doubt that the assessee was diligent and was not guilty of negligence on its part. Sufficient cause as contemplated in the limitation provisions must be a cause which is beyond the control of the assessee. In the case on hand the factual matrix in our view clearly establishes that 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 987 (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 The Coordinate Bench decision in case of Oracle India cited by the assessee has been duly considered and we find that the factual matrix different therein and it was a case lapse on the part of the consultant. In this view of the matter we are of the view that in the case on hand the 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. No substantial question of law

Summary

Issues:
Challenging Tribunal's order of not condoning delay in filing appeal.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision of not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant argued that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay for Assessment Year 2006-07. The appellant contended that the delay was beyond their control and should have been considered for condonation. The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the justification of the Tribunal's decision.

The Tribunal, however, observed that the appellant's submissions were self-serving statements without verifiable evidence. The Tribunal noted an inordinate delay of 246 days in filing the appeals and found that the appellant failed to establish a reasonable cause beyond their control for the delay. The Tribunal emphasized that condoning delay requires a demonstration of diligence and absence of negligence on the part of the appellant. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the delay was due to the negligence and inaction of the appellant, which could have been avoided with due care and attention. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's petitions for condonation of delay for Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of a substantial question of law, the appeal stood dismissed. The decision was based on the finding that the delay was not justified and did not warrant condonation. The Tribunal's ruling was supported by legal principles emphasizing the importance of diligence and reasonable cause for condoning delays in legal proceedings. The appellant's appeal was dismissed based on the Tribunal's analysis of the factual matrix and the lack of sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the appeals.