2018 (7) TMI 1624 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 435 days - reasonable cause - Held that - The explanation offered by the Applicant herein clearly reveals that the Assessee on receipt of the impugned order did not exercise due care and diligence. It appears that the impugned order of the Tribunal was accepted and only upon the service of prosecution notice this exercise of filing the appeal was triggered. The explanation offered does not inspire confidence. It is undisputed that the order of the Tribunal dated 8th July, 2016 was served/ received by the Appellant on 14th September, 2016 and the explanation for the delay that the Director came to know of the order of the Tribunal only on December, 2017 does not appear in the above facts a bona fide explanation. No reason to condone the delay of 435 days in filing the Appeal

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The applicant sought condonation of a 435-day delay in filing an appeal from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The delay was attributed to the applicant becoming aware of the order only in December 2017, resulting in the appeal not being filed within the statutory period.

2. The applicant's counsel argued for the condonation of the delay, citing decisions where delays were condoned based on substantial justice grounds and payment of costs. However, the court noted that the delay explanation provided by the applicant did not inspire confidence as it lacked due care and diligence in filing the appeal promptly upon receiving the order.

3. The court emphasized that the statutory provision mandates the service of orders on the principal officer of the appellant to commence the period of limitation for filing an appeal. The court rejected the argument that the period should commence only upon the officer's knowledge, stating that such a rewriting of the provision is impermissible.

4. Referring to previous judgments where delays were condoned, the court differentiated the present case by highlighting the absence of peculiar circumstances warranting condonation. The court found that the reasons for condoning delays in those cases were not present in the current situation, leading to the rejection of the condonation of the 435-day delay.

5. Ultimately, the court held that the delay in filing the appeal was not bona fide, as the applicant's explanation for the delay lacked credibility. Consequently, the court rejected the Notice of Motion seeking condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal as infructuous, affirming the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.