2024 (4) TMI 486 - AT - Income Tax

Delay in filling appeal before ITAT - Delay of 68 days involved in filing of the appeal - HELD THAT - In the present case, we observe that though there is an inordinate delay of 68 days involved in filing of the present appeal but the assessee had not filed any application seeking condonation of delay and this kind of conduct should be deprecated. Also, 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 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. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the following Issues:
1. Addition of Rs. 29,00,000/- on the count of unexplained credit u/s. 68.
2. Disallowance of Rs. 16,03,090/- u/s. 36(1)(iv) being in excess of 27% limit prescribed u/r. 87.
3. Delay of 68 days in filing the appeal without seeking condonation.

Issue 1:
The appeal challenged the addition of Rs. 29,00,000/- on the count of unexplained credit u/s. 68. The appellant did not appear for the hearing, leading to the Tribunal proceeding based on available records. The Tribunal found that the delay of 68 days in filing the appeal was not explained by the appellant, rendering the appeal not maintainable for lack of condonation application. The Tribunal cited precedents emphasizing the importance of timely appeals and the need for valid reasons for condonation of delay. The lack of a condonation application led to the dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation.

Issue 2:
Regarding the disallowance of Rs. 16,03,090/- u/s. 36(1)(iv) for exceeding the 27% limit under u/r. 87, the appellant's absence during the hearing resulted in the Tribunal proceeding based on existing records. The Tribunal noted the 68-day delay in filing the appeal without any explanation from the appellant. Citing legal principles, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of valid reasons for condonation of delay. The failure to provide such reasons led to the dismissal of the appeal due to being time-barred.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal addressed the delay of 68 days in filing the appeal without any application for condonation. Despite legal precedents highlighting the need for valid reasons for condonation of delay, the appellant did not provide any explanation. The Tribunal referred to relevant case law emphasizing the importance of timely appeals and the requirement for sufficient cause for condonation. As the appellant failed to justify the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.