2024 (1) TMI 111 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay filling appeal before ITAT - inordinate delay of 690 days - delay as occasioned for the reason that accountant of the assessee firm had failed to bring to the notice of the partners of the assessee firm the order of the CIT(Appeals) - HELD THAT - As examined the reasons that had led to the inordinate delay of 690 days, and, as the same cannot be held to have occasioned due to bonafide reasons, therefore, there appears to be no reason to adopt a liberal view and condone the delay therein involved. Also, the fact that the assessee firm was duly assisted by a chartered accountant; therein further fortifies my conviction that the claim of the assessee that it had remained oblivion of the order of the CIT(Appeals) is further disproved. Also, we may observe at this juncture that the law of limitation has to be construed strictly as it has an effect of vesting on one and taking away the right from the other party. The delay in filing of an appeal cannot be condoned in a mechanical or a routine manner since that would undoubtedly jeopardize the legislative intent behind Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The expression sufficient cause will always have relevancy to reasonableness. The action which can be condoned by the court should fall within the realm of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. However, as observed by me hereinabove, as the assessee appellant in the present case is acting in defiance of law, therefore, there can be no reason to allow its application and condone the substantial delay of 690 days involved in preferring of the captioned appeal. In the present case, the delay of 690 days cannot be simply condoned on the basis of the unsubstantiated claim of the assessee that the same had occasioned on account of failure on the part of assessee before the Tribunal.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the appeal filed by an assessee firm against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) arising from an intimation issued by the Centralized Processing Center for the assessment year 2019-20.

Grounds of Appeal:
The assessee challenged the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT (A) regarding the disallowance of Rs. 19,84,415 on account of delayed deposit of employees' contribution towards Provident Fund/ESI.

Factual Background:
The assessee e-filed its return of income for A.Y. 2019-20, but the CPC disallowed the claim for deduction of delayed deposit of employees' share of contribution towards ESI/PF, resulting in an increased income determination.

Appeal Process:
The assessee appealed to the CIT(Appeals) but was unsuccessful, leading to further appeal by the assessee against the order.

Delay in Filing Appeal:
The delay of 690 days in filing the appeal was attributed to the accountant's failure to inform the partners about the CIT(Appeals) order, which was received late due to an email issue.

Condonation of Delay:
The assessee sought condonation of the delay, claiming it was due to bona fide reasons, while the Departmental Representative objected to it.

Judicial Analysis:
The Judicial Member analyzed the reasons for the delay and found the explanation lacking in justifiability, citing negligence on the part of the assessee firm.

Legal Precedents:
Referring to legal precedents, the Judicial Member emphasized the need for sufficient cause for condonation of delay, highlighting the importance of diligence in adhering to statutory timelines.

Decision and Dismissal:
Ultimately, the Judicial Member declined to condone the delay of 690 days, dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation, without delving into the merits of the case.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee firm for A.Y. 2019-20 was dismissed due to the inordinate delay in filing, as per the observations made during the proceedings.

Separate Judgment:
The judgment was pronounced by Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member, on December 5th, 2023.