2024 (3) TMI 471 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 17 days filling appeal before ITAT - contentions of the assessee that the Karta of the assessee HUF was not well at the time of filing of the appeal for which copies of certain medical prescriptions and medical lab reports have been submitted before us along with the application for condonation of delay. It is further argued that due to old age of Karta and unwellness, he could not sign the documents of appeal in time. HELD THAT - As prescriptions submitted before us are not indicating any serious ailments they are for general tests to be undergone by the Karta of the assessee HUF. Ld. AR squarely failed to brought to our attention to any such illness to substantiate the reasonableness in submission of the appeal before the tribunal. The prescription and lab reports submitted before us are dated in November 2022 i.e., 7 months prior to the date of filing of appeal on 06.06.2023 and the other prescription dated 05.07.2023 a/w lab reports dated 21.07.2023 i.e., after one month from the filing of appeal, are regarding general checkup and tests thus, are not substantiating the aspect that the Karta of the assessee HUF was under serious illness thereby helpless in signing and filing the appeal from 21.03.2023 (date of communication of the order) and 60 days thereafter which is prescribed under the statute to file an appeal, this only indicates towards the callous approach of the assessee which is apparently evident from the orders of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) also. Moreover, when the challan for filing of appeal was already paid before the due date of filing of appeal, non-submission of appeal in time before the tribunal shows careless approach of the assessee. Under such facts and circumstances, we can only infer that the delay was occurred on account of callous and lackadaisical approach on the part of the assessee HUF in not preferring the appeal within the stipulated time period. As observed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR ( 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 substantial clarification to support the application for condonation elaborating in the backdrop of sufficient reason that would justify condonation of the delay involved in preferring of the captioned appeal, therefore, we decline to condone the same and, thus, without adverting to the merits of the case dismiss appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the following Issues:
1. Disallowance of exemption u/s. 54F claimed by the assessee.
2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Issue 1: Disallowance of exemption u/s. 54F claimed by the assessee:
The Assessee HUF filed its return of income declaring total income. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for reasons including deduction/exemption from capital, investment in immovable property, and deduction against income from other sources. The Ld. AO examined the deduction u/s. 54(F) claimed by the assessee and found it unjustified. Consequently, the claim was rejected, and the amount was added back to the income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, leading to the present appeal challenging the CIT(A)'s order.

Issue 2: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal:
The present appeal was filed with a delay of 17 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted an application for condonation of delay, citing the old age and ill health of the Karta of the assessee HUF as reasons for the delay. Medical prescriptions and lab reports were presented to support the claim. However, the Ld. Sr. DR opposed the condonation, arguing that the reasons provided were not reasonable and indicated a careless approach by the assessee. The Tribunal, after considering the contentions, found that the delay was due to the lackadaisical approach of the assessee and declined to condone it. Citing precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the law of limitation and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the disallowance of exemption claimed by the assessee u/s. 54F and the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal upheld the decision to disallow the exemption and dismissed the appeal due to the delay being considered as a result of the assessee's careless approach.