2019 (5) TMI 317 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 175 days - Sufficient cause for delay - HELD THAT - The delay is not of a few days but of 175 days. Besides, there is absolutely no valid explanation/reason for the delay. In the case of CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra 1999 (1) TMI 4 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT has observed that where the Legislature spells out a period of limitation and provides for power to condone the delay as well, such delay can only be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. It is a settled principle of law that provisions relating to the specified period of limitation must be applied with their rigor and effective consequences. In this case, delay for filing the appeal late for only a few days was not condoned. Assessee failed to explain that delay in filing the appeals was due to sufficient cause. CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal of assessee by holding them to be time barred. No interference is required in the matter. Appeals of assessee are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Delay in filing appeals before Ld. CIT(A)
- Adequacy of explanation for condonation of delay
- Addition made by A.O. for unexplained investments
- Failure of assessee to provide evidence before A.O.
- Contradictory explanations provided by the assessee
- Legal principles regarding condonation of delay in filing appeals

Analysis:
1. Delay in filing appeals before Ld. CIT(A): The appeals by the assessee were filed belatedly by 175 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay, attributing it to inadvertence at the counsel's level. However, the Ld. CIT(A) found the explanation inadequate and dismissed the appeals as time-barred.

2. Adequacy of explanation for condonation of delay: The counsel for the assessee argued for condonation of delay, emphasizing the merit of the case and citing orders from various Tribunal benches. In contrast, the Ld. D.R. contended that the explanation provided by the assessee did not establish sufficient cause for the delay. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the dismissal of the appeals as time-barred.

3. Addition made by A.O. for unexplained investments: The A.O. made additions on account of unexplained investments for the respective assessment years as the assessee failed to provide details of expenses incurred on construction. Statutory references were made to determine the fair market value of the property, leading to the additions.

4. Failure of assessee to provide evidence before A.O.: The assessee did not submit any evidence before the A.O. to support their contentions, resulting in the A.O. making additions based on statutory valuations obtained under section 142A(1) of the I.T. Act. This lack of evidence indicated a lack of intention to challenge the additions before the Ld. CIT(A).

5. Contradictory explanations provided by the assessee: The explanations provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals were found to be contradictory between the application for condonation of delay and the affidavit submitted. This contradiction undermined the credibility of the assessee's claims and failed to establish a valid reason for the delay.

6. Legal principles regarding condonation of delay in filing appeals: Citing judicial pronouncements, the judgment highlighted the importance of presenting sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals. The courts emphasized the need for a pragmatic approach in condoning delays, with a distinction between inordinate delays and minor delays. In this case, the 175-day delay lacked a valid explanation and did not warrant condonation.

In conclusion, the appeals of the assessee were dismissed by the ITAT DELHI due to the failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing appeals, lack of evidence before the A.O., and contradictory explanations presented. The judgment underscored the necessity of adhering to the specified period of limitation and providing cogent reasons for seeking condonation of delay in legal proceedings.