2025 (1) TMI 699 - AT - Income Tax

Delay filling appeal before tribunal - Condonation of delay of 2655 days - only contention of the assessee is that she handed over the appeal papers to one Advocate and one Chartered Accountant to file an appeal but appeals were not filed before the ITAT - HELD THAT - Merely handing over the appeal papers to the ld. counsel is not sufficient to say that she has acted with due diligence. In the present case on hand, there is a huge delay in filing the appeal and delay is due to negligence act of the assessee only. Moreover, before the AO as well as the CIT(Appeals) the assessee has not appeared even inspite of issuance of twelve notices by ld. CIT(Appeals). All these acts are clearly establish that the assessee is not due diligence. Therefore, it is not a fit case to condone the huge delay of 2655 days. The condonation petition filed by the assessee is dismissed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether the delay of 2655 days in filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) can be condoned.
Whether the assessee demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal.
Whether the actions of the assessee and her representatives amounted to gross negligence, thereby affecting the appeal's admissibility.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Income Tax Act, 1961, and relevant procedural rules provide the framework for filing appeals and the condonation of delays. The principle of condonation requires the appellant to show "sufficient cause" for the delay.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the mere act of handing over appeal papers to legal counsel does not suffice to demonstrate due diligence on the part of the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to actively pursue the filing of the appeal over a prolonged period.
Key Evidence and Findings: The affidavits from the legal representatives indicated that the appeal papers were handed over but not filed timely. The Tribunal noted the absence of any proactive steps taken by the assessee to ensure the appeal was filed.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that condonation of delay requires a demonstration of sufficient cause. In this case, the Tribunal found that the assessee's inaction and lack of follow-up with her counsel constituted negligence.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued that the delay was due to her counsel's failure to act. The Revenue countered that the assessee's lack of response to notices and failure to pursue the appeal indicated gross negligence.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the delay was not excusable and was due to the assessee's negligence. Therefore, the condonation petition was dismissed.

Issue 2: Sufficient Cause for Delay

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The concept of "sufficient cause" is a legal standard requiring a reasonable explanation for delays in legal proceedings.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal interpreted "sufficient cause" to mean that the appellant must show a reasonable and plausible reason for the delay, which was not demonstrated in this case.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal highlighted the lack of any substantive engagement by the assessee with her legal representatives or the tax authorities over the extended period.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the affidavits and explanations provided did not meet the threshold of "sufficient cause" as they primarily attributed the delay to the counsel's inaction without showing diligence on the assessee's part.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee's reliance on her counsel's failure was insufficient to establish a valid cause for the delay. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the assessee to demonstrate active involvement in her legal matters.
Conclusions: The Tribunal determined that there was no sufficient cause for the delay, reinforcing the decision to dismiss the condonation petition.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "Merely handing over the appeal papers to the ld. counsel is not sufficient to say that she has acted with due diligence."
Core Principles Established: The judgment underscores the principle that appellants must actively engage in their legal proceedings and cannot solely rely on legal representatives to avoid the consequences of procedural delays.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal dismissed the condonation petition due to the lack of sufficient cause for the delay, and consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment highlights the importance of due diligence and active participation by appellants in legal proceedings. The decision reinforces the necessity for appellants to demonstrate sufficient cause for delays and not rely solely on legal representatives to manage their legal obligations.

← Previous Next →