9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 967 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay - delay in filing of the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) - delay of 3047 Days - HELD THAT - Assessee has made an afterthought to file the appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee society is not governed by an individual rather it has many members in its governing body and therefore the alleged illness of the one of the directors of assessee society will not prevent the other office bearers of the assessee to file the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) against the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore in our considered view for these vague reasons such huge delay of 3047 days in filing of the appeal before the lower authority cannot be condoned - assessee s reasons in the condonation petition do not come under .reasonable cause. as prescribed under the Act for condonation of delay and the explanation given by the assessee for delay is not proper and casual in nature. The reasons given by the assessee are devoid of any merit and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The law requires the assessee to be vigilant and careful in prosecuting its rights under the Act - See MAJJI SANNEMMA @ SANYASIRAO VERSUS REDDY SRIDEVI ORS 2021 (12) TMI 1424 - SUPREME COURT - Appeal of assessee dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals. 2. Consideration of reasonable cause for delay. 3. Substantial justice vs. technicalities. 4. Applicability of the principles of mutuality and Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals: The primary issue was the condonation of a delay of 3047 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee argued that the delay was due to the ill-health of the Director, who was a chronic diabetic and heart patient. Despite submitting medical bills and health reports, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine, citing that such a long delay was inordinate and not justifiable by the medical reasons provided. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the delay was excessive and the reasons given were not bona fide. 2. Consideration of Reasonable Cause for Delay: The assessee contended that the delay should be condoned due to the Director's health issues, which prevented timely filing. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal both found that the medical issues cited did not sufficiently explain the delay, especially since the Director was not hospitalized for extended periods and the society continued to file returns regularly. The Tribunal emphasized that the society could have authorized other officials to file the appeal. 3. Substantial Justice vs. Technicalities: The Tribunal acknowledged the legal principle that merits should prevail over technicalities. However, it also noted that rules of limitation are designed to ensure timely prosecution of rights and prevent dilatory tactics. The Tribunal found that the reasons given by the assessee for the delay were not convincing and appeared to be an afterthought. Therefore, it held that condoning such a long delay would not serve the cause of substantial justice. 4. Applicability of the Principles of Mutuality and Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The assessee argued that as a mutually aided co-operative society, its income was exempt under the principles of mutuality and Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, since the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of delay, the Tribunal did not adjudicate on the merits of this argument. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals due to the inordinate delay in filing, which was not sufficiently justified by the reasons provided. The decision emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the need for diligent prosecution of rights under the law. The Tribunal also highlighted that substantial justice should not be compromised by technicalities, but in this case, the delay was too significant to overlook. The appeals were dismissed, and no further consideration was given to the merits of the case regarding the principles of mutuality and Section 80P exemptions.
|
