9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 280 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay in filing an appeal - Assessment without serving of notice u/s. 143(2) - Disallowance u/s. 80IC - delay of 373 days in filing the appeal - Held that - No merit in the case of the assessee for condoning the delay. The assessee has deliberately put the blame of negligence or inaction on their tax expert. Even if there was any inaction on their part, the assessee has to explain the delay of each day. Rather otherwise, the law is against the assessee, therefore, the appellant has to suffer for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation, more specifically, when the assessee was not prevented by sufficient cause , as the substantive right accrued in favour of the other party cannot be taken away without any reasonable ground. As we have discussed in preceding paras of this order the assessee was assisted by a team of experts/taxation heads/qualified persons, therefore, we find no merit in the claim of the assessee for condoning the delay. Consequently, the application of the assessee having no merit, therefore, dismissed. - Decided against assesse.
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Validity of notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. 3. Disallowance under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Filing the Appeal: The assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 373 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to bona fide reasons, citing an organizational structure where different departments handle specific tasks, including a taxation department headed by a Chartered Accountant. The delay was attributed to the transition between different heads of the taxation department and an oversight by the directors who believed the appeal had already been filed. The Tribunal examined the reasons provided and concluded that the delay was not satisfactorily explained. The Tribunal emphasized that the law requires the delay of each day to be explained and that substantial delays, like the 373 days in this case, cannot be condoned without sufficient cause. The Tribunal cited various legal precedents to support its decision, including the principle that the law of limitation must be applied rigorously and that equitable considerations do not extend the limitation period. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed. 2. Validity of Notice Issued Under Section 143(2): The assessee argued that the assessment was framed without serving a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. However, it was noted that the notice dated 18/9/2008 was issued and served upon the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee's taxation head did not object to the validity of the notice during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal did not find merit in the assessee's argument regarding the invalidity of the notice under Section 143(2). 3. Disallowance Under Section 80IC: The Assessing Officer noticed that the details of the deduction claimed under Section 80IC were not filed even by 24/12/2009. Consequently, the total income was assessed at Rs. 23,95,801/- against the declared income of Rs. 7,60,200/-. The First Appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal, but the assessee filed a further appeal before the Tribunal. However, since the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, the appeal on the merits of the disallowance under Section 80IC was not maintainable and thus dismissed. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay due to the lack of sufficient cause for the 373-day delay. As a result, the appeal on the grounds of the validity of the notice under Section 143(2) and the disallowance under Section 80IC was also dismissed. The Tribunal underscored the importance of adhering to the limitation period and the necessity of providing a valid explanation for any delay in filing appeals.
|
