2014 (7) TMI 548 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay Delay of 567 days Revision u/s 263 of the Act Revision order misplaced by accountant - Held that - The assessee has stated that its Accountant Mr. J. Devaraj is in-charge of tapals and usually receives letters from various government departments - there is nothing on record to show that the said Mr. J. Devaraj has misplaced any other communication received from any other government department during the said long period of more than 1-1/2 years - It looks as if the revision order alone was misplaced by the Mr. J. Devaraj - all the legitimate doubts are still remaining open and not at all clarified or cleared by the assessee - an assessee usually does not derive any advantage by not filing an appeal in time and the case of condoning the delay in filing an appeal should always be considered very sympathetically and in all fairness - it is also equally important to see that the assessee was reasonably diligent in matters relating to filing of appeal - The delay must be reasonably explained - the assessee has not explained the reasons for delay in a convincing and satisfactory manner before the Tribunal - When the Tribunal is not at all satisfied on the reasons submitted by the assessee for the delay caused in filing the appeal, it is not permissible in law to condone the delay only on the ground of fairness thus, the delay of 567 days cannot be condoned in filing the appeal Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the revision order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II at Coimbatore. The assessee, a partnership firm, had filed its return of income for a loss of Rs. 21,72,514. The Commissioner of Income Tax found the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, leading to the revision of the assessment order under Section 263. The Commissioner set aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order after considering specific observations and directions. The delay in filing the appeal was 567 days, and the assessee submitted an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay.

The reasons provided by the assessee for the delay included the misplacement of the revision order by their Accountant, which was only discovered during the rearrangement of old records in December 2013. The Tribunal raised concerns regarding the plausibility of the explanation, questioning why only the revision order was misplaced by the Accountant and whether the Directors were not in touch with the Coonoor office for over 1-1/2 years. The Tribunal observed that the appeal was filed promptly after receiving the revised assessment order, raising doubts about the diligence of the assessee in filing the appeal in a timely manner.

The Tribunal noted that the speed at which the appeal was filed after discovering the revision order was inexplicable, given the holiday period and the immediate filing of the appeal within 24 hours. While acknowledging the importance of considering delay condonation sympathetically, the Tribunal emphasized the need for a reasonable explanation for the delay. As the Tribunal was not satisfied with the reasons provided by the assessee, the delay of 567 days was not condoned, and the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation. However, the Tribunal clarified that the assessee still had the right to file an appeal against the revised assessment order before the appropriate authorities.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed due to the delay in filing, which was not satisfactorily explained. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of diligence in filing appeals within the prescribed timelines and highlighted that the assessee could still pursue remedies against the revised assessment order through the appropriate channels.