2024 (7) TMI 1277 - AT - Income Tax

Delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) - appeal after a delay of 1154 days - reasons given are that appellant has left all income tax matter in the hands of CA; that he was ignorant of law and that he was busy in agricultural and household activities - HELD THAT - It would not constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 249(3) of the Act. It is thus crystal clear that after receiving the assessment order, the appellant has remained inactive and was grossly negligent. There was no due diligence on the part of the assessee. Such casual and lackadaisical approach against the assessment order and consequential filing of appeal before CIT(A) would not constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act. In view of the above facts and respectfully following the authoritative precedents cited, no reasons to interfere with the decision of CIT(A) in refusing to condone the delay in filing appeal before CIT(A). The ground is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Passing of a non-speaking order by CIT(A).
3. Sustaining the addition under Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Jurisdictional challenge to the reassessment notice under Section 151.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The primary issue was whether the delay of 1154 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned. The assessee argued that the delay was due to reliance on their CA, who failed to file the appeal on time, and due to the assessee's lack of legal knowledge and involvement in agricultural activities. The CIT(A) rejected the condonation request, finding the reasons insufficient.

The Tribunal reviewed the arguments and relevant case laws, including N.Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, where the Supreme Court held that the length of delay is irrelevant if the explanation is acceptable. However, the Tribunal distinguished this case from the present one, noting that the assessee had not taken any action against the CA or provided any affidavit from the CA confirming the reasons for the delay.

The Tribunal also considered recent Supreme Court decisions, such as Majji Sannemma vs. Reddy Sridevi, which emphasized that negligence and lack of due diligence do not constitute "sufficient cause" for condoning delay. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's reasons did not meet the "sufficient cause" criteria under Section 249(3) of the Act, citing gross negligence and inactivity.

2. Passing of a Non-Speaking Order by CIT(A):
The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order by dismissing the appeal without assigning reasons or addressing the submissions. However, since the delay in filing the appeal was not condoned, this issue became academic and was not adjudicated by the Tribunal.

3. Sustaining the Addition under Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 28,90,247/- under Section 50C, arguing that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining this addition. The Tribunal did not address this issue on merits due to the dismissal of the appeal on the preliminary ground of delay.

4. Jurisdictional Challenge to the Reassessment Notice under Section 151:
The assessee raised an additional ground challenging the jurisdiction of the reassessment notice under Section 151, citing precedents from the jurisdictional High Court and ITAT. However, this issue was also not adjudicated due to the primary dismissal based on the delay in filing the appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the condonation of delay, finding the reasons provided by the assessee insufficient to constitute "sufficient cause" under Section 249(3) of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without addressing the merits of the case or the additional jurisdictional challenge.