2016 (4) TMI 1270 - AT - Income Tax

Dismissal of appeal due to procedural delay underscores importance of timely filings

Smt. Shakuntla Thukral, M/s Neeraj Knitwears Versus The ITO, Ward-II (3) Ludhiana

The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal due to a delay of 613 days in filing, which was not condoned as the assessee failed to provide a sufficient cause ... Delay in filing appeal - condonation of delay - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- The assessee could not brought on record any evidence or reasons to demonstrate that she was prevented by inevitable circumstances or there was a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time, which is late by 613 days. It is a settled principle of law that provisions relating to specified period of limitation must be applied with their rigour and effective consequences. In the instant case, we are not satisfied that there had been diligence on the part of the assessee and she was guilty of negligence whatsoever. In our opinion, party guilty of negligence cannot ask for condonation of delay of about 613 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where inordinate delay of 613 days in filing the appeal should be condoned. Accordingly, we decline to condone the delay in filing the appeal and, as such, the appeal is dismissed. At this stage, we may also add here that we do not think it necessary to discuss the merits of the case. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Confirmation of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Confirmation of Penalty Levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The appellant filed a return of income declaring Rs. 2,80,161/-, but the Assessing Officer (AO) determined the total income at Rs. 58,67,550/- after making several additions, including suppressed closing stock, wastage declared, job work done, unaccounted sales, and disallowance of interest paid to family members. The AO noted that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Despite the assessee's detailed reply to the show cause notice, the AO imposed a penalty of Rs. 11,13,430/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.2. Delay in Filing the Appeal Before the Tribunal:The appeal was filed with a delay of 613 days. The assessee received the order on 14.06.2011, and the appeal was due by 15.08.2011 but was filed on 17.04.2013. The assessee attributed the delay to the misplacement of the order by their advocate, who inadvertently placed it in another file. The Tribunal examined the reasons for the delay and found discrepancies in the calculation of the delay period. The Tribunal noted that the actual delay was 613 days, not 579 days as claimed by the assessee.The Tribunal emphasized that 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay must be determined based on the facts of each case. It is well-settled that negligence of an agent (in this case, the advocate) is considered the negligence of the party itself. The Tribunal concluded that forgetfulness of the assessee's counsel does not constitute a 'sufficient reason' for condonation of delay. The Tribunal cited precedents where similar reasons were not accepted as sufficient cause for delay.The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to demonstrate that she was prevented by inevitable circumstances from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The Tribunal highlighted that the provisions relating to the specified period of limitation must be applied rigorously. Given the inordinate delay and lack of sufficient cause, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal without discussing the merits of the case.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed due to the inordinate delay of 613 days in filing, which was not condoned as the assessee failed to provide a sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal did not find it necessary to discuss the merits of the case.