9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 298 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay of 441 days - valid explanation/reason for the delay - sufficient cause of delay - HELD THAT - There is absolutely no valid explanation/reason for the delay. In the case of CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra 1999 (1) TMI 4 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT has observed that where the Legislature spells out a period of limitation and provides for power to condone the delay as well, such delay can only be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. It is a settled principle of law that provisions relating to the specified period of limitation must be applied with their rigor and effective consequences. In this case, delay for filing the appeal late for only a few days was not condoned. In the case of Asstt. CIT vs. Taggas Industries Development Ltd. . 2000 (9) TMI 212 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Calcutta, did not condone the delay for filing the appeal late by 13 days because the delay was not due to sufficient cause. Assessee failed to explain that delay in filing the appeals was due to sufficient cause. Ld. CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal of assessee by holding it to be time barred. No interference is required in the mater. Appeal of assessee is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and whether the delay should be condoned. Analysis: The appeal was directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Gurgaon, for the A.Y. 2014-2015. The assessee, engaged in dairy products business, failed to respond to statutory notices and did not cooperate with the Assessing Officer (A.O.). The A.O. estimated the income of the assessee due to non-cooperation, resulting in an addition to the declared income. The appeal before Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed as time-barred due to a delay of 441 days in filing. The assessee's explanation for the delay included personal reasons related to the Counsel's health issues and family matters. The Ld. CIT(A) found no reasonable cause for the delay and dismissed the appeal. The Counsel for the Assessee argued for condonation of the delay, emphasizing the need for a reasonable cause. However, the Ld. D.R. supported the dismissal, highlighting the lack of cooperation by the assessee and failure to provide a valid reason for the delay. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee must establish a reasonable cause beyond their control for the delay. The explanation provided, regarding the Counsel's health issues and family circumstances, was deemed insufficient to justify the lengthy delay. The Tribunal found that the assessee and the Counsel were negligent in not taking timely action, as evidenced by the lack of cooperation with the A.O. and failure to provide necessary documents. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of valid reasons supported by evidence to condone delays in filing appeals. The Tribunal cited cases where delays of a few days were not condoned due to insufficient cause. In this case, with a delay of 441 days and no substantial justification, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. The Tribunal concluded that the Ld. CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal, as the assessee failed to demonstrate a sufficient cause for the delay. Therefore, no interference was warranted, and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to the time-barred nature of the filing. The decision was based on the lack of a valid and acceptable reason for the substantial delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal stressed the importance of timely compliance and providing genuine justifications for delays in legal proceedings.
|
