2024 (4) TMI 1180 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of a delay of 2553 days in filing the Appeal - assessee, as stated that his Accountant had mixed up the Tribunal order with other papers of the assessee which had contributed to the delay - HELD THAT - No concrete reason given for the delay between 2017 and 2023 - The only reason is mixing up of papers by Ms. Usha Singh before Applicant approached the ITAT and even thereafter the excuse is the same. The truth in our view is, Applicant thought let sleeping dogs lie , why wake up the Department but hope that, like Accountant/Usha Singh, the Department would also mix up Applicants papers with the papers of other assesses. Therefore, the reason of Ms. Usha Singh mixing up the papers is not acceptable. Therefore, in a case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we may even state that there was want of bona fide on the part of Applicant. The Applicant certainly was also negligent and/or has not acted diligently and remained inactive. Therefore, there is no justified ground to condone the delay.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal based on the explanation provided by the Applicant.

Analysis:
1. The Applicant sought condonation of a delay of 2553 days in filing the appeal, attributing the delay to legal advice received in May 2017, which dissuaded them from filing an appeal against the Tribunal's order. Subsequently, the papers got mixed up with other company papers, leading to further delay.

2. The main reason for the delay was the negative opinion given by legal advisors in May 2017, which caused the Applicant to refrain from filing an appeal. The papers were later found mixed up with other company papers, further contributing to the delay.

3. The excuse of papers getting mixed up with other company documents was also cited before the Income Tax Tribunal. However, no reason was provided for the delay between 2017 and 2023, raising questions about the diligence of the Applicant.

4. The court found the explanation of papers being mixed up by the Accountant unacceptable, suggesting that the Applicant may have chosen not to pursue the appeal to avoid arousing the attention of the tax department. The court implied that the excuse of mixed-up papers was not credible.

5. Citing the decision in Basavraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, the court emphasized that condonation of delay requires a "sufficient cause" to justify the delay. Negligence, lack of bona fide intention, or failure to act diligently can prevent the condonation of delay. In this case, the court found the Applicant negligent, lacking bona fide intention, and inactive, leading to the dismissal of the application.

6. Consequently, the court dismissed the Interim Application seeking condonation of delay and also dismissed the Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 33146 of 2023. No costs were awarded in the judgment.