2018 (8) TMI 272 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - power of CIT(A) to condone the delay - company in liquidatation taken over by the official liquidator (OL) - reasons for delay for filling application by OL from 95 upto 316 days - Held that - A perusal of opening part of the application would indicate that ld. OL has not specified any reasons for filing the appeals late. Vague explanation has been given wherein it has been pleaded that he has remained occupied in work assigned by the Hon ble High Court. He has no where demonstrated as to how he could not apply his mind for filing the appeals upto 316 days. To our mind this vague explanation given by the ld.OL is not sufficient and convincing. It is hardly believable that if a file has been assigned to the OL, then he could not have glance on the file for more than 300 days and remained occupied in other works. There could be some other correspondence with his office exhibiting that it was practically impossible for him to attend large volume of work, if any. But no data has been provided along with explanation. Therefore, we are satisfied that there is no plausible explanation for huge delay from 95 upto 316 days.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals filed by the assessee are time-barred for the assessment years 2007-08, 2010-11, and 2012-13.

Analysis:
The appeals were listed for hearing, but the assessee did not appear, leading to an ex parte decision. The Tribunal has the power to admit an appeal after the relevant period if there is a sufficient cause. The term "sufficient cause" has been interpreted liberally by courts, emphasizing substantial justice over technical considerations. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently upheld this principle in various cases, advocating for a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach.

The Official Liquidator filed applications for condonation of delay, citing workload as the reason for the delay ranging from 95 to 316 days. However, the Tribunal found the explanations vague and unconvincing, as no specific reasons were provided for the substantial delay. The Tribunal noted that the Official Liquidator failed to demonstrate why he could not file the appeals within the given time frame, leading to the dismissal of the applications and subsequently, the appeals.

In conclusion, all three appeals by the assessee were dismissed as time-barred, emphasizing the importance of providing a valid and justifiable reason for delay in filing appeals. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of a plausible explanation for the significant delays, highlighting the need for parties to adhere to procedural timelines in legal proceedings.