2017 (10) TMI 640 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - condonation of delay - non filing of the penalty appeal under Section 271(1)(c) - Held that - Whether there is sufficient cause or not depends upon each case and primarily is a question of fact to be considered taking into totality of events which had taken place in a particular case. No cogent and satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the learned counsel for the appellant-assessee even before this Court for inordinately long delay of 613 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The explanation furnished by the assessee as noticed in the earlier part of the order does not satisfy the test of sufficient ground as contemplated under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Justification for rejecting the appeal against order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Whether the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse and deserves to be set aside.

Analysis:
1. The appellant-revenue filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, for the assessment year 2005-06. The substantial questions of law raised included the justification for rejecting the appeal against the order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act and the alleged perversity of the Tribunal's order.

2. The appellant-assessee, a resident of Ludhiana engaged in the business of cloth manufacture, filed a return of income for the assessment year, declaring total income. The Assessing Officer made additions to the income on grounds of suppression of closing stock and unaccounted job work. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated, resulting in a penalty imposition later confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The appeal before the Tribunal was filed belatedly, leading to its dismissal due to a delay of 613 days. The Tribunal found no sufficient cause for the delay, as the appellant failed to demonstrate any unavoidable circumstances preventing timely filing.

3. The Court analyzed the principles for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing the need for a liberal approach for short delays and strict proof for inordinate delays. The appellant's explanation for the delay was deemed unsatisfactory, failing to meet the standard of sufficient cause under the law. Previous judgments cited by the appellant were found irrelevant in the present context. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal due to the unexplained delay, concluding that no substantial question of law arose, and thus, the appeal was dismissed.