2023 (7) TMI 1036 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - reason for delay - Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT - Hon ble Courts are unanimous in their approach to propound that whenever the reasons assigned by an applicant for explaining the condonation of delay, then such reasons are to be construed with a justice oriented approach. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrisknan Vs. M. Krishnamurtky 1998 (9) TMI 602 - SUPREME COURT has observed that length of delay does not matter. It is the explanation given by an applicant demonstrating the reasons for such a delay matter for consideration. We have discussed the past history of the assessee before the AO as well as with the ld. CIT(Appeals). The assessee has not prosecuted its litigation either before the AO or before the ld. 1st Appellate Authority. Thus it is not very serious in contesting the issues. A vague application (extracted supra) suggest its conduct. It does not contain any reason to show, why this appeal has been delayed by the assessee. It is also pertinent to observe that this conduct of the assessee gives up a feeling that it is just filing the appeal for the sake of filing without submitting any details discharging its onus cast upon by section 68 of the Income Tax Act. In such situation, we do not consider the reasons assigned by the assessee as sufficient reason for filing the appeal beyond the prescribed limit. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed being time barred. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the confirmation of an addition of Rs. 39,01,00,000/- by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal as time-barred.

Confirmation of Addition:
The assessee filed its return of income disclosing total income of Rs. 2,022/-. The ld. Assessing Officer noted that the assessee raised share capital of Rs. 39,01,00,000/-, including premium received. Despite summons and lack of details, the addition was made. The ld. CIT(Appeals) upheld the addition based on the lack of resources of share applicants to pay such a premium and the absence of substantial business by the assessee. The antecedents of share applicants were discussed in the order.

Dismissal of Appeal as Time-Barred:
The appeal was found to be time-barred by 88 days. The Tribunal considered the provision for condonation of delay and cited relevant legal principles emphasizing a liberal interpretation of "sufficient cause." The Tribunal noted the lack of serious contestation by the assessee in previous proceedings and the vague explanation for the delay in the current appeal. The Tribunal concluded that the reasons provided were insufficient, indicating a lack of effort by the assessee to meet its obligations under the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred.