2023 (2) TMI 387 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - reasons for delay - delay 923 days in filing of the Misc. Application by the assessee - HELD THAT - From the reasons for delay , in clear and simple words, is that the assessee never cared to go through the order passed by the ITAT in its case when it was initially received by it on 18.6.2019 and went through the same only when order of the ITAT was followed by the ld.CIT(A) in the case of the assessee in subsequent assessment year i.e. Asst.Year 2015-16 for dismissing the assessee s appeal. We fail to understand, how this lackadaisical attitude of the assessee can justify in any manner the delay in the filing of the appeal. On the contrary such assessees should be heavily penalized for wasting the time of Courts by filing such applications, seeking rectification in the orders, well beyond the period of limitation prescribed for the same. Any delay in making the application beyond the limitation prescribed in law, is to be justified with a reasonable cause for entertaining the application if any. In the present case, in the absence of any reasonable cause forwarded by the assessee for the delay in filing of its MA, we see no reason for entertaining the same, and the MA filed by the assessee is dismissed as non-maintainable, being filed beyond limitation prescribed in law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay of 923 days in filing a Misc. Application seeking recall of the Tribunal's order.
2. Justification for the delay in filing the Misc. Application.
3. Assessment of the reasonableness of the cause for the delay.
4. Dismissal of the Misc. Application by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the delay of 923 days in filing a Misc. Application by the assessee seeking the recall of the Tribunal's order passed in ITA No.1066/Ahd/2017 dated 18.6.2019. The assessee explained the delay by stating that they did not review the order promptly upon receipt, only doing so later when it was followed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) in a subsequent assessment year.

2. The justification provided by the assessee for the delay was based on a perceived misinterpretation of the order by the Hon'ble SMC Bench and a subsequent realization that the ratio decided by the Bench was not in line with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's precedent. The assessee emphasized the need to decide the issue on its merits to align with the correct legal position.

3. The Tribunal, in evaluating the reasonableness of the cause for the delay, found the explanation provided by the assessee to be unreasonable and lacking merit. The Tribunal highlighted that the assessee's failure to promptly review the order upon receipt cannot justify such a significant delay in filing the Misc. Application. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed legal timelines for seeking rectification of orders.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Misc. Application filed by the assessee as nonmaintainable due to being filed beyond the limitation prescribed by law. The Tribunal underscored the necessity of following legal procedures and timelines for seeking corrections to orders, regardless of the perceived shortcomings in the initial decision. The dismissal of the Misc. Application was based on the absence of a reasonable cause for the delay, emphasizing the need for adherence to legal requirements.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on upholding the importance of timeliness and adherence to legal procedures in seeking the recall or rectification of orders, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Misc. Application due to the unjustified delay in filing.