2024 (1) TMI 611 - HC - Income Tax

Delay of 5318 days in filing the appeal - sufficient cause for the delay - addition of Rs. 50 Lakhs as undisclosed income - HELD THAT - The impugned order dated 09.05.2008 was challenged by the petitioner by way of review and rectification petition before the Tribunal and the same were disposed of as early as on 04.11.2010 and 27.09.2013. No attempt was made thereafter to file the Tax Case Appeal, instead the petitioner has chosen to file a rectification petition before the First Appellate Authority and on its rejection, once again filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The complacency in the approach of the petitioner does not inspire confidence, but reflects apathy and lack of bona fide . Thus, we do not find any convincing reason set out in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition. It is trite law that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, it is for the applicant to explain that there was sufficient cause for the delay. It had been consistently held that sufficient cause would mean that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part, but must have acted diligently and not remained inactive. It is clear that the discretion to condone the delay ought to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. If it is found that the party has been negligent, not vigilant and lacking bona fide, the Court would not come to rescue of such litigants. We had already found that the conduct of the petitioner lacks bona fide and the reasons adduced do not satisfy the test laid down for constituting sufficient cause . The reasons set out in the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay of 5318 days i.e., nearly 14 years are unconvincing and do not furnish any cause much less sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, instead reveal a callous attitude and a casual approach in availing the right of appeal. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project 2008 (11) TMI 611 - SUPREME COURT has categorically observed that the Courts help those, who are vigilant and do not slumber over their rights . Therefore, we are not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 5318 days in filing the appeal.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves condoning a significant delay of 5318 days in filing a Tax Case Appeal against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal confirming the addition of Rs. 50 Lakhs as undisclosed income of the petitioner.

Delay Condonation Petition:
The petitioner, engaged in selling products under a specific brand, was a consignment agent and was found carrying Rs. 50 lakhs in cash which was seized by police authorities. The petitioner's attempts to challenge the addition of Rs. 50 lakhs as undisclosed income led to various legal proceedings, including review petitions and rectification petitions, all of which were dismissed. The delay in filing the Tax Case Appeal was attributed to pending requisition under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent legal actions taken by the petitioner.

Court's Analysis:
The Court examined the grounds presented by both parties. The respondent argued that the delay condonation petition lacked sufficient cause and reflected a casual approach on the part of the petitioner, who had already pursued multiple avenues for redressal before filing the appeal. The Court emphasized that the party seeking delay condonation must act diligently and not remain inactive, as per established legal principles.

Legal Precedents:
The Court cited legal precedents to emphasize the importance of demonstrating "sufficient cause" for delay condonation. The judgments highlighted that a party should not have acted negligently or lacked bona fide, and the discretion to condone delay should be exercised judiciously based on the facts of each case. The Court reiterated that negligent litigants should not be rescued, and delay condonation should not be granted without a valid and convincing reason.

Decision and Rationale:
Based on the analysis and legal principles, the Court found that the petitioner's conduct lacked bona fide and did not meet the criteria for "sufficient cause" to condone the delay of 5318 days. The Court, citing a Supreme Court case, emphasized that courts assist vigilant individuals who do not delay in asserting their rights. Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition to condone the delay was dismissed, and the Tax Case Appeal was rejected at the SR stage, with no costs imposed.