2020 (2) TMI 442 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - absence of sufficient cause - delay of more than 300 days - HELD THAT - A pleader's gross carelessness affords no ground for condonation of delay; that a legal advisor's mistake, in order to justify condonation of delay must be a bonafide mistake; that mistaken advice given by a lawyer negligently and without due care is not sufficient cause; that the mistake should be such, which even a skilled legal advisor, well-versed and experienced in law might make that mistake; that, the fact that there was lawyer's wrong advice has to be proved by the party seeking condonation of delay; and that the Counsel must disclose the circumstances in which incorrect advice was given and, it is not sufficient to make a perfunctory and general statement that wrong advice was given bonafide. In any case, as noted by us in foregoing paragraph (B.2.1) of this order, the affidavit filed from the assessee's side in support of request for condonation of delay in filing of this appeal, lacks credibility. Hence, the assessee's appeal is held to be barred by Limitation, having regard to Section 253(3) read with Section 253(5) of I. T. Act. Accordingly, the appeal is not admitted, and is dismissed in limine - Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB(7) of ?20,62,069 for the hotel at Delwara, Rajasthan.
2. Disallowance of ?54,84,341 for the Jaipur Project.
3. Disallowance of netting off interest of ?19,39,562.
4. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80IB(7):
The appellant contested the disallowance of ?20,62,069 under Section 80IB(7) related to their hotel in Delwara, Rajasthan. The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A), which confirmed the disallowance. However, the tribunal did not address the merits of this issue due to the procedural issue of delay in filing the appeal.

2. Disallowance of ?54,84,341 in respect of Jaipur Project:
The appellant also challenged the disallowance of ?54,84,341 related to the Jaipur Project. Similar to the first issue, the tribunal did not consider the merits of this disallowance due to the procedural delay in filing the appeal.

3. Disallowance of Netting off Interest of ?19,39,562:
The appellant argued against the disallowance of netting off interest amounting to ?19,39,562. This issue was also not examined on its merits due to the appeal being time-barred.

4. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The primary issue addressed was the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was filed 318 days late, and the appellant sought condonation of this delay. The reasons provided included a misunderstanding that the department might file an appeal, and the appellant could then file a cross-objection. The tribunal found the affidavit supporting the delay to lack credibility as it was based on hearsay and not verified properly.

The tribunal referenced the case of CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra, emphasizing that delay can only be condoned for sufficient and good reasons supported by proper evidence. The tribunal noted deficiencies in the affidavit, including it not being deposed before a competent authority and not verified. The tribunal concluded that the reasons for the delay were not sufficient and highlighted the appellant's negligence in realizing the department had not filed an appeal. The tribunal also discussed the legal principles from various Supreme Court cases, concluding that the appellant's reasons lacked bona fides and were fanciful and concocted.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine due to the absence of sufficient cause for the delay in filing. The tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed time limits and found that the appellant's conduct did not justify the condonation of delay. The merits of the grounds of appeal were not addressed due to the procedural dismissal.