2022 (5) TMI 732 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - Revision u/s 263 - appeal is time barred by 95 days and the assessee has filed affidavit stating the reasons - assessee in his affidavit stated the reasons that he has received intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act and according to the same, the assessee s legal consultant stated that intimation is factually incorrect and application for rectification u/s.154 of the Act shall be filed - HELD THAT - We noted from the application for condonation and affidavit filed, that the reasons stated are for the intimation order passed u/s.143(1) of the Act and not the revision order. Hence, we find no reason to condone the delay and hence, the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.

Summary

Issues:
1. Timeliness of the appeal filed by the assessee.

Analysis:
The appeal in question arose from a revision order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant failed to appear for the hearing multiple times, leading to an ex-parte decision. The appeal was found to be time-barred by 95 days, with the assessee submitting an affidavit explaining the delay. The reasons cited in the affidavit pertained to an intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act, not the revision order itself. The Senior DR pointed out this discrepancy, emphasizing that the delay was not adequately justified concerning the revision order. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation, as the reasons provided did not apply to the relevant order.

This case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural timelines in legal matters, particularly in tax appeals. The Tribunal's decision was based on the specific reasons cited by the assessee for the delay, highlighting the need for accurate and relevant justifications when seeking condonation of delays in filing appeals. The distinction between different orders and their respective implications on timeliness was a crucial factor in the dismissal of the appeal. It serves as a reminder for appellants to ensure that their grounds for condonation align with the specific order under consideration to avoid adverse outcomes due to procedural lapses.

Overall, the judgment focused on the precise nature of the delay and the adequacy of reasons provided by the assessee in justifying the delay in filing the appeal. By emphasizing the need for alignment between the reasons cited and the relevant order, the Tribunal upheld the importance of procedural compliance and accurate representation of facts in legal proceedings. The dismissal of the appeal serves as a cautionary tale regarding the consequences of failing to meet timeliness requirements and underscores the significance of clarity and precision in legal documentation and submissions.