2018 (12) TMI 812 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - Reasons for delay - Approval u/s 10(23C)(iv) rejected - Held that - The appellant society has been negligent in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Reasons for delay are general and vague and simply it has been stated that when the order of the CIT (E) was received, the same was mailed to the counsel. However, who was the counsel and when did the order was mailed to the counsel has not been mentioned. All the reasons are vague and general reasons. Even there was no application moved for condonation of delay along with the appeal. The present application for condonation of delay has been moved only after the Registry show caused the assessee vide letter dated 21.8.2017 and even the reasons mentioned for condonation of delay are seemed to be an afterthought. It is a clear cut case of gross negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee. The aforesaid plea taken by the assessee, in our view, does not constitute a reasonable cause for condonation of delay. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against rejection of application u/s 10(23C)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Appeal prima facie barred by limitation of 226 days.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of the assessee's application seeking approval u/s 10(23C)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeal was found to be delayed by 226 days, prompting a show cause notice from the Registry. The appellant society cited negligence in filing the appeal, stating that they were under the impression it had been filed when the order was received. However, the reasons provided were deemed vague and insufficient, with no specific details about when the order was mailed to the counsel. The Tribunal noted that the reasons for delay were general and lacked specificity, and no application for condonation of delay was submitted initially. The Tribunal concluded that the delay was due to gross negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee, and the reasons presented did not constitute a reasonable cause for condonation of delay.

2. Referring to the decision in the case of Postmaster General vs. Living Media India Ltd, the Tribunal highlighted that red tapism within the department, slow movement of files, and bureaucratic methodology were not acceptable as 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay. The Tribunal emphasized that the law of limitation binds everyone, including the Government, and that condonation of delay should not be an anticipated benefit for government departments. Citing the case of Amalendu Kumar Bera v. State of West Bengal, the Tribunal reiterated that delay in filing appeals cannot be mechanically considered, especially in cases of serious laches and negligence. Based on these legal principles, the Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to the delay of 226 days, emphasizing the need for valid and specific reasons for condonation of delay in legal proceedings. The decision was based on established legal principles regarding the condonation of delay, highlighting the importance of diligence and commitment in fulfilling legal obligations, even for government bodies and instrumentalities.