2023 (1) TMI 1314 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay of 1563 days - Sufficient cause of delay - lapse on the part of his regular counsel, CA who had failed to provide the requisite details and properly guide him as regards filing of the appeal before the Tribunal - HELD THAT - In the present case, the delay of 1563 days cannot be simply condoned on the basis of the unsubstantiated claim of the assessee that the same had occasioned on account of failure on the part of his regular chartered accountant in properly guiding him as regards filing of the appeals before the Tribunal. In fact, the conduct of the assessee before the lower appellate authority and the AO clearly evidences his disregard for the process of law, which, as find, he had carried forward before me by preferring the appeal beyond a period of 1563 days after the lapse of the stipulated time period. Also, as observed in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. 1961 (5) TMI 54 - SUPREME COURT that seeker of justice must come with clean hands, therefore, now when in the present appeals the assessee appellant had failed to come forth with any good and sufficient reason that would justify condonation of the substantial delay involved in preferring of the captioned appeals, therefore, we decline to condone the delay of 1563 days and, thus, without adverting to the merits of the case dismiss all the captioned appeals of the assessee as barred by limitation.

Summary

Issues involved:
Delay in filing appeals before ITAT Raipur, condonation of delay, habitual lackadaisical approach by the assessee, past conduct of the assessee, negligence in participating in assessment proceedings, application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, interpretation of "sufficient cause" in condonation of delay, distinction between normal delay and inordinate delay, necessity of clean hands in seeking justice.

Analysis:

1. Delay in filing appeals before ITAT Raipur:
The appeals filed by the assessee were directed against the consolidated order passed by the CIT(Appeal), Bilaspur. The appeals were time-barred by 1563 days. The assessee attributed the delay to the failure of their regular counsel, a Chartered Accountant, to guide them properly in filing the appeals before the Tribunal.

2. Condonation of delay:
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide genuine reasons for the substantial delay of 1563 days in filing the appeals. The lackadaisical conduct of the assessee was evident as they had consistently delayed filing appeals even before the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal noted that the delay was not explained to have occurred due to bonafide reasons, leading to a refusal to condone the delay.

3. Habitual lackadaisical approach by the assessee:
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had a habit of adopting a lackadaisical approach before the appellate authorities. The assessee's failure to participate in assessment proceedings for certain years further indicated a negligent attitude towards tax compliance.

4. Past conduct of the assessee:
Considering the totality of facts, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had not participated in assessment proceedings for certain years, leading to the AO framing assessments under specific sections of the Income-tax Act. This past conduct of the assessee contributed to the decision not to condone the delay in filing the appeals.

5. Application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act:
The Tribunal emphasized the strict construction of the law of limitation, highlighting that the delay in filing appeals cannot be condoned mechanically. Upholding the legislative intent behind Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Tribunal refused to condone the inordinate delay in the present case.

6. Interpretation of "sufficient cause" in condonation of delay:
Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal discussed the concept of "sufficient cause" for condoning delays. In this case, the habitual defiance of law by the assessee led to a refusal to accept the claimed reasons for the delay as justifiable.

7. Distinction between normal delay and inordinate delay:
Drawing from a Third Member decision of a co-ordinate Bench, the Tribunal differentiated between normal delay and inordinate delay. The delay of 1563 days in this case was considered inordinate, and the unsubstantiated claim of the assessee regarding the cause of delay was not deemed sufficient for condonation.

8. Necessity of clean hands in seeking justice:
Citing the principle that the seeker of justice must come with clean hands, the Tribunal emphasized that the assessee's failure to provide good and sufficient reasons for the delay led to the dismissal of all appeals as barred by limitation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals of the assessee due to the habitual lackadaisical approach, failure to provide genuine reasons for the delay, and the overall conduct of the assessee in the tax proceedings.