2014 (6) TMI 295 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay Delay of 1270 days Sufficient cause present or not - Held that - Assessee had produced three certificates from Mannarkkad Ayurvedic Clinic which indicate, between what period, he was under treatment on three occasions - it was not continuous treatment and there was break in between, and the break was not a short spell but duration of 6 to 12 months - none of the Certificates indicated that he was required to be admitted to hospital as in-patient - the inordinate delay of 1270 days is not explained with sufficient and convincing material and the treatment at Ayurvedic Clinic was not as in-patient and there was enough time for assessee to approach Tribunal - It is not a case where the assessee was ignorant of what was happening on account of his illness, but the entire situation now faced is only on account of negligence in taking the matter before the appellate authority at the relevant point of time Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing appeal with the Appellate Tribunal.
2. Justification for the delay of 1270 days.
3. Adequacy of reasons provided for the delay.
4. Admissibility of medical certificates as evidence.
5. Applicability of Section 144 of the Income Tax Act.
6. Proper explanation for the delay in approaching the Tribunal.
7. Sufficiency of funds as a reason for the delay.
8. Previous legal actions taken by the appellant.
9. Negligence in pursuing the appeal in a timely manner.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case revolves around the significant delay of 1270 days in filing an appeal with the Appellate Tribunal, challenging the completed assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1999-2000.

2. The appellant attributed the delay to his back pain condition, which required continuous treatment and rendered him unable to approach the Tribunal within the prescribed period of limitation. The appellant also cited financial constraints as a reason for the delay.

3. The appellant submitted three medical certificates from an Ayurvedic Clinic to justify the delay, indicating periods of treatment. However, upon scrutiny, it was observed that the treatment was not continuous, with significant breaks ranging from 6 to 12 months, and none of the certificates indicated the need for in-patient admission.

4. The High Court had previously set aside orders passed under Section 264 of the Act, directing the authorities to treat the revision petition as an appeal. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed an order, which was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal with the aforementioned delay.

5. The Court found that the delay was not adequately explained, as the appellant was aware of the proceedings and had approached various authorities at different points in time. The lack of funds for litigation was deemed insufficient justification for the delay, especially considering the appellant's active involvement in the legal process.

6. Ultimately, the Court upheld the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, ruling that the delay of 1270 days was not sufficiently justified, and the appellant's failure to timely pursue the appeal was attributed to negligence rather than genuine incapacity due to illness. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.