Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Appeal for Delayed Filing

Case Name:

Ms. Raghupathy Dhakshayani v. The Income Tax Officer

Key Takeaways:

1. The appeal was dismissed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal due to a delay of 1161 days in filing.
2. The petitioner’s petition for condonation of delay was rejected as the reasons given were deemed unreasonable.
3. The Tribunal emphasized that rules of limitation are meant to prevent dilatory tactics and that the petitioner must explain each day of delay.
4. The petitioner’s claim of being unaware of the order and being out of station during the period was not accepted by the Tribunal.
5. The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner had not provided valid reasons for the delay and had taken a casual approach in pursuing her case.

Case Synopsis:

The appeal, ITA No.133/Chny/2023, was filed by Ms. Raghupathy Dhakshayani against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Chennai, dated 12.09.2019, for the assessment year 2016-17.

The appeal was filed with a delay of 1161 days, and the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. The reasons given by the assessee for the delay were that she was residing with her son in Pune and came back to Chennai in January 2023. The order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was received by her brother-in-law, but he failed to communicate the receipt of the order to the assessee. The assessee learned about the appeal order in January 2023 and took steps to file an appeal before the Tribunal.

The Departmental Representative (DR) strongly opposed the petition for condonation of delay, stating that the reasons given by the assessee were vague and unreasonable. The DR argued that the assessee had filed the e-return for the assessment year in question and had also represented her case before the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The DR also pointed out that the appeal order was passed in September 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the claim that the assessee could not come to Chennai due to COVID-19 was not acceptable.

After hearing both parties and considering the reasons given by the assessee, the Tribunal found that the reasons did not come under reasonable cause for condonation of the delay. The Tribunal cited the principle that rules of limitation are meant to prevent dilatory tactics and that the assessee must explain each and every day of delay. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had taken a casual approach in pursuing her case before the appellate authority and had not provided valid reasons for the delay. Therefore, the petition for condonation of delay was rejected, and the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as unadmitted.

FAQ:

Q1: What was the reason for the delay in filing the appeal?

A1: The petitioner claimed that she was residing with her son in Pune and came back to Chennai in January 2023. She stated that her brother-in-law failed to communicate the receipt of the order to her, and she learned about the appeal order in January 2023.

Q2: Why was the petition for condonation of delay rejected?

A2: The Tribunal found the reasons given by the petitioner to be unreasonable. The petitioner’s claim of being unaware of the order and being out of station during the period was not accepted, as she had filed the e-return for the assessment year and had represented her case before the authorities.

Q3: What was the outcome of the appeal?

A3: The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal due to the delay in filing and the rejection of the petition for condonation of delay.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Chennai, dated 12.09.2019, and pertains to assessment year 2016-17.

2. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee, Shri Anandd Babunath, CA, at the time of hearing, submitted that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 1161 days, for which, petition for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal along with Affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay has been filed.

The Ld.Counsel for the assessee, referring to petition filed by the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed order on 12.09.2019 and the same has been communicated to the assessee on 01.10.2019. The assessee should have filed appeal on or before 29.11.2019.

However, she had filed the appeal on 03.02.2023 after delay of 1161 days. The reasons for delay in filing of the appeal is due to reasons beyond the control of the assessee, because, she was residing with her son in Pune and came back to Chennai only in January, 2023. Further, order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) was received by her brother-in-law, Shri Raja Balu, however, he failed to communicate the receipt of the order to the assessee. She had come to Chennai in January, 2023 and learnt about the appeal order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and took steps to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal, which caused delay of 1161 days. The delay in filing of the appeal was on account of assessee’s absence from Chennai, but not to gain any undue benefit. Therefore, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that reasons given by the assessee comes under reasonable cause for condonation of delay, and thus, appeal filed by the assessee may be admitted for hearing.

3. The ld.Sr.DR, Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT, strongly opposing the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of huge delay, submitted that reasons given by the assessee are vague and unreasonable, which is evident from the fact that the assessee had filed e-return for the impugned assessment year and also represented her case before the AO and the Ld.CIT(A).

Further, although, assessee claims that due to Covid-19, she could not come to Chennai, but fact remains that the appeal order passed in the month of September, 2019, and the same was communicated to the assessee on 01.10.2019, and during that period, Covid-19 was not at all present in India. Further, claim of the assessee that she was out of station during that period, is also not acceptable for the simple reasons, the assessee was very much available in India during said period. Therefore, Ld.DR submitted that there is no valid grounds for condonation of delay of 1161 days, and thus, appeal filed by the assessee should be dismissed as unadmitted.

4. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, appeal has been filed after delay of 1161 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal. We have gone through the reasons given by the assessee for not filing the appeal within due date prescribed under the Act and after considering reasons given by the assessee, we find that said reasons does not come under reasonable cause as provided under the Act for condonation of huge delay of 1161 days in filing of the appeal.

It is a well settled principle of law by the decisions of various courts, including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy reported in [1998] 7 SCC 123 held rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. A similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji, reported in [1987] 2 SCC 107, where although, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Courts must adopt liberal approach to condone the delay, but very categorically observed that it is for the assessee to explain each and every day of delay in filing of the appeal.

In the present case, although, there is huge delay of 1161 days in filing of the appeal, but the assessee could not explain delay with valid reasons. Although, the assessee claims that she was not in Chennai during that period and further, she was not aware of order of the Ld.CIT(A), but fact remains that she was very much present in India during that period and further, she has presented her case before the AO and the Ld.CIT(A) with utmost care and diligence. From the above, it is undoubtedly clear that the assessee had taken a casual approach in pursuing her case before the appellate authority, even though, she was aware that she need to file the appeal as per the provisions of the Act within the limitation period provided under the statue. Therefore, we are of the considered view that reasons given by the assessee for delay in filing of the appeal does not come under reasonable cause for condonation of huge delay of 1161 days, and thus, we reject the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay and dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee as unadmitted.

5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on the 30th day of October, 2023, in Chennai.

Sd/-

(MAHAVIR SINGH)

VICE PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MANJUNATHA.G)

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Chennai,

Dated: 30th October, 2023.