2015 (10) TMI 2700 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal dismisses appeal for delay of 1625 days, emphasizes statutory limitation importance.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to an inordinate and unexplained delay of 1625 days in filing the appeal. Emphasizing the importance of adhering to ... Deduction u/s 80HHC on DEPB benefits - Condonation of delay - Held that:- The totality of facts, clearly indicates that the assessee took a conscious decision firstly, not to file the appeal against the order of the ld. First Appellate Authority and thereafter took a decision to file the appeal. It is not the case of delay which was beyond the control of the assessee. So far as, the affidavit is concerned, it is a self serving document and the assessee has not explained satisfactorily the reason of delay in filing the appeal. The assessee was wilfully negligent or irresponsible in taking a decision, thus, the huge delay cannot be condoned. We are conscious of the fact that technicalities should not come in the way of substantial cause of justice but in cases, where the delay was beyond the control of the assessee or some genuine difficulties hindered his smooth way. As discussed earlier, it is clear cut case of conscious decision, thus, we find no merit in the self made story of the assessee, therefore, on this issue, we are not agreeing with the admission of this appeal, thus, the delay is not condoned, therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.2. Deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on DEPB benefits.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:The primary issue addressed in the judgment is the condonation of a 1625-day delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee argued that there was sufficient reason for the delay, citing an accident and misplacement of the order by office staff. The assessee relied on various judgments, including *Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Katiji* (167 ITR 471), *L. Balkrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy* (1998) 7 SCC 123, and *Vasu & Co. vs. State of Kerala* (2001) 124 STC 124 (Kerala), to support the condonation of delay.The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and examined the reasons provided by the assessee. The assessee claimed that the delay was due to an accident and the order being misplaced by office staff. However, the Tribunal found contradictions in the assessee's statements and noted that the assessee had sufficient time to file the appeal before the accident occurred. The Tribunal observed that the delay appeared to be a conscious decision and not due to reasons beyond the assessee's control. The Tribunal emphasized that the law of limitation must be applied with its full rigor and that the delay in this case was inordinate and lacked plausible reasoning. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in *Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao vs. Shantarma Bavurao Patil* (2002) 253 ITR 798 (SC), which distinguished between ordinary and inordinate delays, and concluded that the delay in this case was inordinate and not adequately explained.The Tribunal also referred to the decision in *P. K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala* (AIR 1998 SC 2276), which stated that the law of limitation must be applied rigorously and that courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The Tribunal found that the reasons provided by the assessee were not sufficient to condone the delay and that the assessee was negligent in filing the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as time-barred.2. Deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on DEPB Benefits:The second issue involved the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on DEPB (Duty Entitlement Pass Book) benefits amounting to Rs. 1,63,48,487/-. The First Appellate Authority had disallowed the claimed deduction on DEPB benefits, which was contested by the assessee.However, since the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the grounds of delay, it did not delve into the merits of the issue regarding the deduction under Section 80HHC on DEPB benefits. The Tribunal's decision was primarily focused on the procedural aspect of the delay in filing the appeal and did not address the substantive tax issue.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee due to an inordinate and unexplained delay of 1625 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory period of limitation and found that the reasons provided by the assessee were not sufficient to condone the delay. Consequently, the substantive issue regarding the deduction under Section 80HHC on DEPB benefits was not adjudicated. The appeal was dismissed as not admitted.