2024 (4) TMI 986 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - substantial delay of 166 days before ITAT - as argued the assessment order was passed by the A.O on 16.12.2018 and was issued on 29.12.2018 without any reasons for keeping the same with him, reasons recorded under Section 148(2) of the Act were not supplied to the assessee by the A.O and appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the CIT(Appeals) vide an ex-parte order dated 29.03.2023 etc. HELD THAT - In the present case, the assessee has failed to file his return of income but had also evaded his participation in the proceedings. In absence of any plausible explanation of the assessee as regards the delay in filing of the appeal, his request for condonation of the same, when read in the backdrop of his conduct before the authorities below cannot be summarily accepted on the very face of it. There is no substance in the claim of the assessee that the delay involved in filing of the appeal was due to bonafide reasons, as the same clearly smacks of the lackadaisical conduct on his part. In the totality of the facts leading to the delay in filing of the appeal read with the conduct of the assessee appellant before the AO and the CIT(Appeals), the request of the assessee for condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal does not merit acceptance. As rightly relied on by the ITAT that in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Administrator, Howrah 1971 (12) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT had held that the expression sufficient cause should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, particularly when there is no motive behind the delay. The expression sufficient cause will always have relevancy to reasonableness. The action which can be condoned by the Court should fall within the realm of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. However, as the assessee appellant in the present case is habitually acting in defiance of law, where he had not only delayed in filing of the present appeal but also had adopted a lackadaisical approach and not participated in the course of the proceedings before the CIT(A), therefore, there can be no reason to allow his application and condone the substantial delay of 166 days involved in preferring of the captioned appeal. Now, when in the present appeal the appellant / assessee had failed to come forth with any good and sufficient reason that would justify condonation of the substantial delay involved in preferring of the captioned appeal, we hereby dismiss the present appeal upholding the reasons assigned by the learned ITAT. Assessee appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order u/s 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Justification for treating cash deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act.
3. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT.

Summary:

1. Validity of the assessment order u/s 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The appellant challenged the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Raipur Bench, which arose from the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi. The original assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 144/147 of the Act for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. The appellant failed to file his income tax return due to illness, leading the AO to assess the income based on available information and impose penalties for late submission.

2. Justification for treating cash deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act:
The AO observed cash deposits of Rs. 34,67,700/- in the appellant's savings bank account, which were treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Despite several notices, the appellant did not provide any explanation for the source of these deposits. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order due to the appellant's non-compliance and failure to participate in the appellate proceedings. The ITAT also dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant's continued non-participation and lack of explanation for the cash deposits.

3. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT:
The appellant's appeal to the ITAT was delayed by 166 days. The appellant claimed that he was unaware of the CIT(A)'s order due to it being uploaded on the e-filing portal without real-time alerts, which he discovered only during a random check. The ITAT dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant's reasons for the delay were not bona fide and reflected a lackadaisical attitude. The court emphasized that the appellant's habitual non-compliance and failure to participate in the proceedings did not justify condoning the delay. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the ITAT's decision.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the ITAT's decision that the appellant's conduct and lack of participation did not warrant condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. The assessment order treating the cash deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act was upheld due to the appellant's failure to provide any satisfactory explanation.