2012 (12) TMI 523 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of Delay in filling appeal before Tribunal Delay of 2053 days - Whether the petition filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay of 2053 days in filing the appeal is liable to be accepted Held that - Even if an assessee can t explain delay on day to day basis, at least it should be able to demonstrate its inability in a reasonable manner. Here, the assessee is not a na ve or a first time litigant. This appeal itself is second round of litigation. We notice that neither there are sufficient particulars nor satisfactory explanation. The CIT(Appeals) passed order on 29.8.2006 whereas in the year 2011, for the first time, the assessee filed its representation(supra). No doubt, the law of limitation is only a tool to serve justice. When there is sufficient explanation, even time barred lis can be entertained by condoning delay. Hence, in our opinion, this hopelessly time barred appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of limitation. Issue decides against assessee Claim u/s. 40(b) Fresh Claim before ITAT- Whether the CIT(A) order confirming the findings of the AO in rejecting assessee s claim u/s 40(b)B is to be upheld or modified as per the respective stands of the parties Held that - Assessee needs for filing a revised return for making a fresh claim. In first round of assessment neither such claim had been raised nor was any revised return filed. Assessee preferred to raise claim the benefit of Sec.40(b) that too in the absence of books of accounts and other supporting documents. Issue decides against assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Upholding or modifying the CIT(Appeals)'s order regarding the rejection of the claim under Sec.40(b) of the Income Tax Act.

Issue 1: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal:
The appellant filed a condonation petition seeking a delay of 2053 days in filing the appeal. The petition highlighted various reasons for the delay, including unresponsiveness from tax authorities and pursuing alternate remedies. The Authorized Representative argued in support of the petition, emphasizing the appellant's lack of fault in the delay. However, the Departmental Representative contended that the delay was unjustified as the representation was made years after the CIT(Appeals)'s order. The Tribunal observed that the petition lacked a satisfactory explanation for the delay. While acknowledging the liberal attitude towards condonation petitions, the Tribunal stressed the importance of substantial justice and adherence to procedural requirements. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the lack of a reasonable explanation for the significant delay.

Issue 2: Upholding or modifying the CIT(Appeals)'s order on Sec.40(b) claim:
The case involved a dispute over the appellant's claim under Sec.40(b) of the Act. The Assessing Officer had rejected the claim due to the absence of supporting documents and the non-maintenance of books of accounts. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the Assessing Officer's findings, leading to the appellant's appeal. The appellant argued that the claim should have been entertained under Sec.40(b) even in subsequent proceedings. The Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, decided to address the case on merits despite dismissing the appeal on the delay issue. It noted that the appellant raised the Sec.40(b) claim only after a remand order and without providing substantial evidence. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of supporting claims with proper documentation and the filing of revised returns for fresh claims. As the appellant failed to meet these requirements, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision on the merits, ruling against the appellant and in favor of the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the unexplained delay in filing and upheld the rejection of the Sec.40(b) claim by the CIT(Appeals) based on the lack of supporting evidence. The decision emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and substantiating claims with necessary documentation in tax disputes.