2024 (2) TMI 1196 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 280 days involved in preferring of the captioned appeal - scope of expression sufficient cause - distinction was drawn between normal delay and inordinate delay - contentions of the assessee that the accountant has left many things incomplete, and it appears that he intentionally delays the filing of the appeal although it was ready in all respect HELD THAT - The delay in filing of the appeals cannot be condoned in a mechanical or a routine manner since that would undoubtedly jeopardize the legislative intent behind Section 5 of the Limitation Act. As the assessee appellant in the present case had come forth with any cogent explanation elaborating the acceptable reasons leading to the delay in filing the present appeal, and had adopted a lackadaisical approach, therefore, there can be no reason to condone the delay of 280 days involved in preferring of the captioned appeal. As observed in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. 1961 (5) TMI 54 - SUPREME COURT that seeker of justice must come with clean hands, therefore, now when in the present appeal the assessee appellant had failed to come forth with any substantial clarification to support the application for condonation elaborating in the backdrop of sufficient reason that would justify condonation of the substantial delay involved in preferring of the captioned appeal, therefore, we decline to condone the same and, thus, without adverting to the merits of the case dismiss appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Reopening u/s 148.
2. Legality of addition of Rs. 3,80,38,000/- and Rs. 38,000/-.
3. Failure to appreciate evidences under sec. 68.
4. Sustaining addition on share application money.
5. Sustaining addition on commission on share application money.
6. Ignoring submission regarding identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness.
7. Assessment based on suspicion and conjectures.
8. Condonation of delay in filing appeal.

Summary:

Condonation of Delay:
The appeal was filed with a delay of 280 days. The assessee attributed the delay to the negligence of their accountant, who was expelled without informing the directors about the pending appeal. The assessee claimed that the delay was also due to a search conducted u/s 132, which diverted their attention. However, the Tribunal found these reasons insufficient and noted that no supporting documents were provided to substantiate the claims. The Tribunal emphasized that the law of limitation must be construed strictly and cannot be condoned mechanically. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that the delay was due to the assessee's lackadaisical approach and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

Validity of Reopening u/s 148:
The Tribunal did not address the merits of the case due to the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of limitation.

Legality of Addition of Rs. 3,80,38,000/- and Rs. 38,000/-:
The Tribunal did not address the merits of the case due to the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of limitation.

Failure to Appreciate Evidences under sec. 68:
The Tribunal did not address the merits of the case due to the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of limitation.

Sustaining Addition on Share Application Money:
The Tribunal did not address the merits of the case due to the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of limitation.

Sustaining Addition on Commission on Share Application Money:
The Tribunal did not address the merits of the case due to the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of limitation.

Ignoring Submission Regarding Identity, Creditworthiness, and Genuineness:
The Tribunal did not address the merits of the case due to the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of limitation.

Assessment Based on Suspicion and Conjectures:
The Tribunal did not address the merits of the case due to the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of limitation.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was dismissed as barred by limitation due to an inordinate delay of 280 days, which was not satisfactorily explained. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of adhering to the law of limitation and found no substantial reasons to condone the delay. Consequently, the merits of the case were not considered.