2023 (8) TMI 635 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay filling appeal before ITAT - main contention behind the delay was that he was ill-advised by the Counsels and by the time he engaged new Counsel and got the correct advice to file the appeal the time of limitation was already surpassed - HELD THAT - As contention of the assessee cannot be acceded to for the reason that the assessees were unable to substantiate its contention by way of producing or submitting any information like who was the earlier Counsel copy of any written opinion on whose opinion assessees have not filed the appeals in time and also no material supporting evidence could be placed on record in support of this contentions of the assessee. Therefore in our considered opinion there was no sufficient cause whereby the assessee was prevented to file the appeals in time it was only the assessee who has not acted diligently or remain inactive. As assessee has failed to come forth with any good and sufficient reason that would justify condonation of the substantial delay involved in preferring of the captioned appeals. Therefore the condonation of delay which was without any reasonable cause was declined. Thus dismissing all the captioned appeals of the assessee as barred by limitation.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing appeals by the assessees.
2. Justification for the delay and condonation of the same.

Summary:

Issue 1: Delay in filing appeals by the assessees

The appeals were filed by two assessees against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Raipur, for various assessment years. All seven appeals were delayed, with delays ranging from 46 days to 545 days. The Tribunal examined the admissibility of these appeals under the provisions of sec.253(3) & (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows the Tribunal to condone delays if there is sufficient cause.

Issue 2: Justification for the delay and condonation of the same

The assessees claimed the delays were due to incorrect advice from their previous counsel. They cited the Supreme Court judgment in Concord of India Insurance Co Ltd v. Nirmala Devi & Ors., arguing that reliance on legal advice should be considered a sufficient cause for delay. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessees failed to provide any substantial evidence, such as the identity of the previous counsel or written opinions, to support their claims.

The Senior Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the condonation, arguing that the delays were inordinate and not justified by sufficient cause. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the burden of proving sufficient cause lies with the assessees, who failed to act diligently. The Tribunal referenced several judgments, including Suranjan v. Ashok Kumar and R.B. Ramlingam vs R.B. Bhvaneswari, emphasizing that condonation of delay is not a right and must be supported by reasonable diligence.

The Tribunal also referred to its own previous decisions, such as Shyam Sundar Agarwal v. ITO and M/s. Phoenix Mills Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT, to highlight that inordinate delays without justifiable reasons should not be condoned. It concluded that the assessees' habitual lackadaisical approach and failure to provide substantial evidence for the delays indicated a disregard for the process of law.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed all seven appeals as barred by limitation, stating that the assessees failed to provide sufficient cause for the delays. The decision was pronounced on the 09th day of August 2023, in Raipur.