2015 (9) TMI 264 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal - delay for over five years - Held that - No cogent reason has been given by the department for inordinate delay in this case. As per the contents of the application for condonation of delay of the Revenue, the due date of filing of the appeal before the Tribunal was 20th June, 2007. The present appeal was filed before the Tribunal on 18th December, 2012, and thus there is a delay of over five years i.e. 2005 days wit the only reason of the department in the condonation application is that while handing over the charge by the AO, the above case might not been mentioned in the handing over note exchanged by the officers relieved and taking over the charge of Circle 4, Ahmedabad, and accordingly the aspect of filing of the appeal to ITAT might not been taken into account by the officer taking over the charge of circle 4, Ahmedabad. No other reason has been stated on behalf of the Revenue. The reason advanced for the inordinate delay for over five years could not be said to be a sufficient reason for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, and in our view, it shall be a wrong precedent to encourage such casual attitude of the appellant, by admitting the appeal by condoning inordinate delay for no valid reason. Thus dismiss the appeal by the Revenue in limine and refuse to condone the delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance under section 35D of the IT Act.
2. Addition of EMI residual income.
3. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The appeal by the Revenue was against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2004-2005. The grounds raised included the disallowance of a specific amount on account of deduction under section 35D of the IT Act. The CIT(A) had deleted this disallowance, which was contested by the Revenue in the appeal before the Tribunal.

2. Another issue raised in the appeal was the addition of EMI residual income. The CIT(A) had also deleted this addition, prompting the Revenue to challenge this decision before the Tribunal. The grounds of appeal highlighted the disagreement with the CIT(A)'s decision on this matter.

3. The third issue revolved around the delay of 2005 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal by the Revenue. The department sought condonation of this delay citing oversight during the transition of Assessing Officers. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, found that the reasons provided for the delay were not sufficient. The Tribunal noted that the delay of over five years was not adequately justified and dismissed the appeal by the Revenue, refusing to condone the delay.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to the inordinate delay in filing and the lack of sufficient reasons provided for the delay. The decision emphasized the importance of justifying delays in filing appeals before the Tribunal and declined to set a precedent by condoning such lengthy delays without valid reasons.