2017 (1) TMI 1205 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - Held that - Though the assessees/appellants submitted that it is the duty of the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to have sent the notices for hearing of the rectification petitions, filed by the appellants/assessees and thus the assessees were waiting, for a considerable period, and thus attributed the cause for delay, this court is not inclined to accept the same, for the reason that as observed earlier that rectification petitions have been filed before an incompetent appellate authority. Even taking for granted that they were filed in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, we are of the considered view that it is for the appellants/assessees to have processed the same. Blaming an authority is always easy. Conduct of the appellants substantiates lethargy and lack of bonafides. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are also of the considered view, that the appellants, have not pursued the remedy, promptly, with diligence and due care, when they filed such applications. Inaction, is apparent on the face of record. In the light of the above, it cannot be contended that the appellants were wrongly pursuing a remedy, with diligence, care and caution and hence the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal should be condoned. - Decided against the assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was correct in dismissing the appeals due to a delay in filing.
2. Whether the appellants' actions constituted sufficient cause for the delay under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Whether the appellants' reliance on incorrect advice from their Chartered Accountants and subsequent actions were bona fide and diligent.
4. Whether the ITAT properly considered the appellants' reasons for the delay.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Dismissal of Appeals Due to Delay
The appellants filed appeals against the orders of the ITAT, which were dismissed due to a delay of 962 days. The Tribunal emphasized that the delay cannot be condoned merely out of sympathy or benevolence and must be proven to be beyond the control of the party. The Tribunal found the appellants negligent and lacking in due care, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

Issue 2: Sufficient Cause for Delay
The appellants contended that the delay was due to pursuing an alternative remedy under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on advice from their Chartered Accountants. They argued that their actions were bona fide and should not attract laches. However, the Tribunal and subsequently the High Court found that the appellants did not demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, as they failed to show due diligence and care in pursuing their rectification petitions.

Issue 3: Bona Fide and Diligence of Appellants' Actions
The appellants argued that they acted on the advice of their Chartered Accountants and filed rectification petitions within the stipulated time. However, the High Court noted that most petitions were filed before an incompetent authority, and there was a significant delay in pursuing these petitions. The court found no evidence of prompt steps taken by the appellants to rectify their mistake, indicating a lack of bona fides and diligence.

Issue 4: Consideration of Reasons for Delay by ITAT
The appellants relied on the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. K.S.P.Shanmugavel Nadar, arguing that pursuing a wrong remedy diligently should not result in laches. However, the High Court found that the appellants did not provide sufficient details or evidence to support their claims of due diligence. The court highlighted that the appellants' conduct showed lethargy and inaction, and the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeals was justified.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision to dismiss the appeals due to the appellants' failure to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. The court emphasized the importance of due diligence and proper care in pursuing legal remedies and found the appellants' actions lacking in these respects. The appeals were dismissed, and the substantial question of law was answered against the appellants.

← Previous Next →