2024 (2) TMI 1037 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay filing appeal before ITAT - present appeal involves a delay of 161 days - bonafide reasons for delay or not? - AR submitted that though the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 21.03.2022, but the assessee appellant remained unaware about the same, and the same had come its knowledge only in the course of its audit for A.Y. 2022-23 - HELD THAT - As the assessee appellant was in receipt of order of the CIT(Appeals) on 21.03.2022 (as mentioned in the memorandum of appeal filed before us), therefore, we are unable to comprehend that what stopped the assessee in preferring the present appeal upto 17th June, 2022. We are afraid that as the reasons given by the assessee for explaining the delay are not bonafide, therefore, the same cannot be summarily accepted. Considering the callous and lackadaisical conduct of the assessee company wherein it had delayed the filing of the present appeal without any justifiable reason, we do not find any substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that the delay in filing of the appeal had occasioned for bona fide reasons. As observed in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd 1961 (5) TMI 54 - SUPREME COURT that seeker of justice must come with clean hands, therefore, now when in the present appeal the assessee appellant had failed to come forth with any good and sufficient reason that would justify condonation of the delay involved in preferring of the captioned appeal - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the dismissal of appeal due to non-compliance, confirmation of re-assessment proceedings, addition made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, validity of the impugned order, and condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Dismissal of appeal due to non-compliance:
The assessee company appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi, on the grounds of non-compliance. The company argued that the appeal was dismissed without considering the written submissions filed before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals). However, the Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal was not justified, as the company was aware of the order but failed to appeal within a reasonable time frame.

Confirmation of re-assessment proceedings:
The re-assessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal observed that the substantial increase in share capital and share premium during the year under consideration was disproportionate to the existing capital structure, assets/liability position, and business of the assessee company. As the company failed to provide a plausible explanation for the source of receipt of share capital/share premium, the addition made under section 68 of the Act was upheld.

Addition made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act:
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 3,71,50,000/- under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, treating it as the undisclosed income of the assessee company. This addition was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi. The Tribunal upheld this addition as the company failed to explain the source of receipt of share capital/share premium.

Validity of the impugned order:
The impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer under sections 143(3)/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was challenged by the assessee company. The company contended that the order was bad in law and on facts. However, the Tribunal found no merit in the arguments presented by the company and upheld the impugned order.

Condonation of delay in filing the appeal:
The assessee company sought condonation of a 161-day delay in filing the appeal, citing reasons beyond its control for the delay. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, found that the delay was not justified as the company was aware of the order dismissing the appeal. The Tribunal declined to condone the delay, emphasizing the need to adhere to the law of limitation strictly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee company due to the unjustified delay in filing the appeal, without delving into the merits of the case.