9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 240 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay - Delay of 477 days - sufficient cause of delay - charge on C.A. for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that assessee received the impugned order dated 28.11.2016 on 15.12.2016. The Ld. CIT(A) passed the ex- parte Order in the absence of Counsel for Assessee and allowed the appeal of assessee partly. These facts, therefore, clearly show that Shri Trilok Bansal, C.A. did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) for prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, there was no reason for assessee to believe the same Counsel for filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The entire facts have been manipulated and fabricated by assessee to put blame on Shri Trilok Bansal, C.A. for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It may be noted here that assessee has deposited the Tribunal fees for filing of the appeal only on 02.06.2018 as per the challan filed on record, which would show that assessee never acted bonafidely to take steps to file appeal within the period of limitation before the Tribunal. Assessee failed to explain that delay in filing the appeal was due to sufficient cause. No reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal of assessee is accordingly dismissed being time barred.
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal before ITAT for A.Y. 2012-2013. Analysis: The appeal by the Assessee was directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-16, New Delhi, dated 28.11.2016, for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. The appeal was reported as time-barred by 477 days due to the delay in filing. The Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay, stating that the authorized Chartered Accountant (C.A.) failed to inform about the case's progress and did not attend the appellate proceedings, resulting in an ex-parte decision. The Assessee contended that upon realizing the non-filing of the appeal, immediate steps were taken to file it before the Tribunal. The Assessee sought condonation of the delay attributing it to the Counsel's negligence. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. argued that despite receiving the order on 15.12.2016, no action was taken by the Assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time. The Ld. D.R. emphasized the significant delay and cited various legal precedents to support the argument against condonation of delay. The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties. It was noted that the Counsel for the Assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte order partially allowing the appeal. The Tribunal observed that the Assessee failed to act promptly in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, as evidenced by the delayed payment of Tribunal fees on 02.06.2018. The Tribunal found that the Assessee's attempt to shift blame to the Counsel was unfounded and that the delay was not adequately explained. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of adhering to specified periods of limitation and the need for valid reasons supported by proper evidence to condone delays. Given the significant delay of 477 days without a valid explanation, the Tribunal concluded that there was no justification to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal of the Assessee was dismissed as time-barred for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Assessee due to the time-barred nature of the filing. The decision was based on the lack of a valid explanation for the significant delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to specified periods of limitation and the requirement for sufficient cause supported by proper evidence to justify condonation of delays in legal proceedings.
|
