Dismissal of Appeals for Tax Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05 Due to Substantial Delays

Agricultural Market Committee Versus ADIT (Exemptions-I), Hyderabad

Agricultural Market Committee Versus ADIT (Exemptions-I), Hyderabad - TMI Issues:
- Appeal against separate orders by CIT(A)-IV, Hyderabad for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05.
- Delay of 1559 days in filing appeal for 2003-04 and 1529 days for 2004-05.
- Grounds raised by the assessee related to exemption under section 11 of the IT Act and utilization of market fee.
- Contention on condoning delay by the assessee and opposition by the departmental representative.
- Application of principles for condonation of delay as per legal precedents.
- Decision on whether to condone the delays and admit the appeals.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against separate orders by CIT(A)-IV, Hyderabad for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The assessee raised common grounds related to the erroneous nature of the orders, claiming exemption under section 11 of the IT Act as a Govt. Institution for public charitable purposes, and arguing that the market fee collected did not represent income under specific provisions. The appeals were clubbed and heard together due to common grounds for convenience.

Regarding the substantial delays of 1559 days for 2003-04 and 1529 days for 2004-05 in filing the appeals, the assessee sought condonation, attributing the delays to genuine reasons such as confusion post-amendment in tax laws and seeking registration under section 12AA of the IT Act. The departmental representative opposed the condonation, leading to a detailed analysis by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal considered legal principles for condonation of delay, emphasizing the need for a pragmatic approach and substantial justice. Citing precedents, including the Supreme Court's stance on distinguishing between inordinate delays and minor delays, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of diligence and avoiding negligence in seeking relief. The Tribunal stressed that delays cannot be condoned out of sympathy or benevolence, requiring a clear demonstration of diligence and reasons beyond the assessee's control.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found the reasons presented by the assessee insufficient to justify condoning delays exceeding 1500 days. The Tribunal concluded that the delays were a result of negligence and inaction that could have been avoided with due care and attention. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, emphasizing the lack of merit in the arguments put forth by the assessee.