2024 (7) TMI 1476 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay in filing of appeal before Tribunal - appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 357 days - As submitted that CA of assessee was not aware of the provisions of direct appeal to ITAT against the order u/s 263 of the Act - HELD THAT - The simple and bland statement in the affidavit that CA, Shri Varun Agarwal was not aware of the provisions of direct appeal to ITAT against the order u/s 263 of the Act is unbelievable. How would a practicing CA not know about appealable order and the proper appellate forum for filing appeal arising from orders passed by different income-tax authorities? No supporting evidence in the form of confirmation letter or affidavit of Shri Varun Agarwal has been enclosed to substantiate its claim. It is clear that assessee waited for the fresh order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act and when it found that no relief was granted on the issue of unsecured loans, he has filed appeal before both Ld. CIT(A) and the ITAT. The reasons given by the assessee are therefore general, self-serving and not convincing. It is settled law that condonation of delay should not be granted only on the ground that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.Condonation of delay should not be granted only on the ground that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. The reason given by the assessee in the present case is not adequate or enough and also looks bonafide on its part. It is thus crystal clear that assessee was grossly negligent, inactive and casual in filing of appeal. Such negligent, casual and lackadaisical approach to file appeal cannot constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of section 253(5) of the Act. Appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Delay in filing appeal before ITAT

Analysis:
The appeal before ITAT stemmed from an order passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017-18. The appellant raised grounds challenging the order, citing lack of opportunity and error in invoking section 263. The appeal was delayed by 357 days, prompting the appellant to file an affidavit for condonation of delay. The appellant claimed that the delay was due to the Chartered Accountant's lack of awareness regarding the direct appeal process to ITAT against the section 263 order. However, the Tribunal found this explanation unconvincing, noting the lack of supporting evidence and the appellant's delayed response upon receiving the assessment order. The Tribunal emphasized that condonation of delay should not be granted solely based on the litigant's lack of benefit from lodging a late appeal.

The Tribunal referred to various legal precedents, including the case of Basawaraj, highlighting the importance of demonstrating "sufficient cause" for delay. The Tribunal underscored that negligence, lack of diligence, and inactivity could not justify condoning the delay. The Tribunal also discussed the public policy basis of the law of limitation, emphasizing the need for finality in litigation. Additionally, the Tribunal cited the Collector, Land Acquisition case to caution against using a liberal approach to defeat the law of limitation. Ultimately, the Tribunal refused to condone the delay, considering the appellant's negligence and lackadaisical approach in filing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the uncondoned delay. The decision was based on the appellant's failure to establish sufficient cause for the delay, as required by the law. The Tribunal's analysis underscored the importance of diligence and timely compliance with legal procedures, especially in matters of appeal timelines.