2019 (9) TMI 312 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay for filling appeal against the order of Revision u/s 263 - delay of 288 days - HELD THAT - As originally the assessee had no intention to file an appeal against the order passed by the CIT u/s 263 of the Act. We find that giving effect order passed by the AO on 31.03.2017 alone is the provocation of filing the appeal before this Tribunal with the delay of 288 days against the order passed by the CIT u/s 263 of the Act. We find that this does not constitute sufficient cause for the delay caused in filing the appeal before us. In our opinion, the assessee cannot indefinitely wait for the fate of the consequential order to be passed by the A.O. against the order passed by the CIT u/s 263 of the Act. The assessee herein wants to take the benefit of its wrong doing which is evident from the above narrated facts in detail. The assessee has not explained proper reason for such a delay of 288 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and it cannot be said that the assessee was diligent in filing appeal before the Tribunal. It is the primary duty of the assessee to establish sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time. The reason advanced by the assessee is very vague and cannot be said that the assessee is actually interested in pursuing the issue before this Tribunal. Thus, in the present case, there is no sufficient cause for presenting the appeal belatedly before the Tribunal. Accordingly, we decline to condone the delay of 288 days. We are of the opinion that the assessee being a private limited company, which was assisted by group of Advocates and Chartered Accountants and in such circumstances it cannot be said that the assessee is not aware of the necessity of filing the appeal against the order passed by the CIT u/s 263 of the Act, and it cannot be said that the case of this appeal alone was slipped away from the assessee s mind and he could not take remedial measure to file appeal before this Tribunal. AR pleaded before us that adjudication may be given on merits, even if the appeal is dismissed on condonation, to complete the legal proceedings. At this stage, we are refraining from going into the merits of the ground raised by the assessee on the addition proposed by the CIT. Accordingly, this plea of the learned AR is also rejected - Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Issues Involved:

1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Validity of the order passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
3. Alleged errors in the assessment order passed under section 143(3).
4. Principles of natural justice and excessive exercise of jurisdiction.
5. Admissibility of expenditure and cost incurred for the issue of debentures.
6. Deduction of tax at source on interest payments.
7. Transactions pertaining to receipts from debenture holders and repayments.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:

The primary issue was the delay of 288 days in filing the appeal. The assessee argued that the delay was due to ignorance of the appealable nature of the order under section 263. The Tribunal noted that the assessee received the order on 03.12.2016, with the appeal due by 01.02.2017, but it was filed on 16.11.2017. The Tribunal found that the delay was not justified, as the assessee, a private limited company assisted by professionals, should have been aware of the necessity to file the appeal. The Tribunal cited past cases where delays due to ignorance were not condoned, emphasizing that ignorance of law is not a sufficient cause. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay.

2. Validity of the Order Passed Under Section 263:

The assessee contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) erred in assuming that the assessment order under section 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The CIT's order was challenged on the grounds that it contained mere allegations without cogent evidence. However, since the appeal was dismissed due to delay, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of this issue.

3. Alleged Errors in the Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3):

The assessee argued that the assessment order was not erroneous as the expenditure for the issue of debentures was statutorily admissible, interest was proportionately claimed and allowed, tax was deducted at source, and transactions were conducted through banks. The Tribunal, however, did not address these arguments due to the dismissal of the appeal on procedural grounds.

4. Principles of Natural Justice and Excessive Exercise of Jurisdiction:

The assessee claimed that the CIT failed to consider objections judiciously, violating natural justice principles, and exercised excessive jurisdiction by interfering with the assessment officer's powers. Again, these arguments were not adjudicated due to the appeal's dismissal for being time-barred.

5. Admissibility of Expenditure and Cost Incurred for the Issue of Debentures:

The assessee maintained that the expenditure on debentures was admissible in the year incurred without amortization. This point was part of the broader argument against the CIT's order under section 263, which was not considered due to the procedural dismissal.

6. Deduction of Tax at Source on Interest Payments:

The assessee argued that interest payments on debentures were subject to tax deduction at source, fulfilling legal requirements. This was part of the defense against the CIT's order but was not examined by the Tribunal due to the appeal's dismissal.

7. Transactions Pertaining to Receipts from Debenture Holders and Repayments:

The assessee asserted that all transactions were conducted through banks, ensuring transparency and compliance. This argument was also part of the broader challenge to the CIT's order, which was not addressed due to the appeal being dismissed for delay.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to a significant delay of 288 days in filing, which was not condoned as the reasons provided were deemed insufficient. Consequently, the Tribunal did not address the substantive issues raised against the CIT's order under section 263. The decision underscores the importance of timely filing appeals and the limited scope for condoning delays based on ignorance of legal procedures.

← Previous Next →