2024 (8) TMI 176 - AT - Income Tax

Delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) - condonation of delay to place before the appellate authority - Delay of 2086 Days - HELD THAT - In the instant case, admittedly, the assessee has not shown any action or vigilance for a period of more than five years after the assessment order was served upon it. The appellant has not proved any inaction or negligence on the part of a third party, much less have they pleaded any action or vigilance on their own part. Thus, the appellant failed to make out a case that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and remained negligent and did not initiate any steps at all. Inaction and want of diligence on the part of the appellant/applicant would not entitle it to the benefit of the provisions of section 249(2) - Therefore, appellant is found to be casual, non-serious and non-vigilant in preferring/instituting the appeal before CIT(A) against the assessment order. In order to avoid injustice to respondent revenue, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee in-limine is upheld.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and sufficiency of reasons for the delay.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) as it was filed after a delay of 2086 days from the expiry of the statutory period for filing the appeal. The delay was not supported by any application or affidavit explaining the reasons behind it. The Revenue argued that the delay was inordinate and without any sufficient reason, citing legal precedents to support their stance.

2. The Tribunal considered the issue of delay condonation without delving into the grounds of appeal and merits of the case. It was noted that the appeal was filed well beyond the statutory period prescribed by the Income Tax Act, and no plausible explanation was provided for the delay. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of establishing sufficient cause for delay and highlighted that the burden lies on the party seeking condonation to provide clear and explicit facts supporting their case.

3. Referring to legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal emphasized that lack of bona fide intent and negligence on the part of the party seeking condonation of delay are crucial factors. The Tribunal observed that the appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay and did not take any steps to rectify the situation. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal due to the inordinate delay in filing it.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee based on the findings related to the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal highlighted the need for parties to act diligently and provide valid reasons for any delay in legal proceedings. The decision was made to prevent injustice to the revenue authority and uphold the principles of timely legal actions in tax matters.