2018 (8) TMI 2136 - 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:
Delay in filing appeal, rejection of appeal by Tribunal, condonation of delay, substantial questions of law.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the Tribunal's judgment rejecting the appeal due to delay. The counsel framed substantial questions of law regarding the justification of the Tribunal's actions. The Tribunal observed that the appellant's submissions were self-serving statements without verifiable evidence. It noted an inordinate delay of 246 days in filing the appeals and found no reasonable cause beyond the appellant's control for the delay. The Tribunal emphasized that condoning delay requires diligence and absence of negligence on the appellant's part. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the delay was due to the appellant's negligence and inaction, which could have been avoided with due care. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the condonation of delay for Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07, as substantial justice would not be served by condoning the delay.

The Tribunal held that no substantial question of law arose from the matter, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of establishing sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning delay in filing appeals. The decision was based on the factual matrix of the case, emphasizing the need for diligence and absence of negligence on the part of the appellant. The Tribunal referred to relevant legal decisions to support its reasoning and concluded that the delay in this case was attributable to the appellant's negligence, warranting the rejection of the appeal.

Overall, the judgment focused on the importance of diligence and reasonable cause in seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals. It underscored the need for appellants to demonstrate that the delay was beyond their control and not due to negligence. The Tribunal's decision was based on a careful analysis of the facts and legal precedents, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to the appellant's failure to establish a sufficient reason for the delay.