2019 (5) TMI 683 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 1578 days - HELD THAT - As we examine the explanation given by the assessee for condonation of delay, then it would reveal that hardly there is any explanation. They have accepted the computation of capital gain before the AO. They have not raised any objection at the level of AO, and then decided not to file appeal against the order of the ld.CIT(A). There is no plausible reason for condoning the delay of almost more than four years. The assessee ought to have vigilant for their rights. No merit in their applications and therefore, all the applications for condonation of delay are rejected. Consequently, the appeals of the assessees are also dismissed. Rectification application u/s 154 - plea of the assessee is that capital gain be assessed in the hands of the assessee on the basis of DVO s report called for in the cases of other co-owners - FAA dismissed application of the assessee on the ground that no such material is available on the record of the assessee and there is no apparent error in the order of the CIT(A) - HELD THAT - The power of rectification u/s 154 can be exercised only when the mistake which is sought to be rectified, is an obvious patent mistake, which is apparent from the record and not a mistake, which is required to be established by arguments and long drawn process of reasoning on points, on which there may conceivably be two opinions. Since no evidence is available before the CIT(A) when the appeal of the assessee was decided on 7.2.2013. Orders in the case of other co-owners have come up subsequently on 14.4.2016. Therefore, on that date no apparent error was committed by the ld.CIT(A). To our mind, there was no material which can demonstrate that order of the ld.CIT(A) was suffering from an apparent error. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) has rightly rejected the application of the assessee - Appeals of the assessee are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals against orders of the ld.CIT(A) dated 7.2.2013 for the Asstt. Year 2009-10.
2. Appeal against rejection of application under section 154 of the Income Tax Act for assessing capital gain based on DVO's report.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay
The Assessee had moved an application under section 154 of the Income Tax Act in the order of the ld.CIT(A) dated 7.2.2013, which was dismissed. The Registry pointed out that all appeals of the assessee were time-barred except one. The Assessees filed affidavits stating reasons for the delay, citing communication gaps and awaiting valuation reports. The Tribunal considered the explanation for condonation of delay under Section 253 and emphasized the liberal interpretation of the term "sufficient cause." Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of substantial justice and the need to advance justice over technical considerations. Despite the uniform affidavits, the Tribunal found no merit in the applications for condonation of delay and subsequently dismissed the appeals of the assessees.

Issue 2: Appeal against Rejection of Application under Section 154
One appeal (ITA No.2084/Ahd/2017) was against the rejection of the assessee's application under section 154 of the Act. The assessee sought to have the capital gain assessed based on the DVO's report in the cases of other co-owners. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the application, stating no material was available on record and no apparent error existed in the original order. The Tribunal reiterated that rectification under section 154 can only be for obvious patent mistakes, not issues requiring lengthy reasoning. As no evidence was available before the ld.CIT(A) when the original appeal was decided, and subsequent orders in other cases were issued later, the rejection of the application was upheld. The Tribunal found no merit in this appeal as well, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed all appeals of the assessees, emphasizing the importance of timely action, substantial justice, and the need for clear, patent errors for rectification under section 154. The judgment highlighted the liberal interpretation of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay and the significance of advancing justice over technicalities.