2012 (12) TMI 701 - AT - Income Tax

Appeals Dismissed for Procedural Lapses and Delay in Filing

The tribunal dismissed both appeals concerning the disallowance of foreign travel expenses and the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) due to ... Delay in filing appeal - disallowance of foreign travel expenses and levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- The assessee seems to be quite negligent by not taking the necessary steps for filing the appeal within the time prescribed by the statute. The conduct of the assessee reveals that the assessee takes the condonation of delay provision as granted. The assessee did not care to submit any request for condonation of delay, even when it was brought specifically to his notice at the time of filing of appeal itself. As decided in the case of Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [1961 (5) TMI 54 - SUPREME COURT] the cause for the delay in filing the appeal, which by due care and attention, could have been avoided, cannot be a sufficient cause within the meaning of the limitation provision. The rule of limitation also contains a rule of justice, especially where a person chooses not to take up requisite legal remedies for an inordinate length of time and without reasonable cause, the Tribunal should apply the rule of limitation. Seekers of justice must come with clean hands. In the instant case, no reasonable cause is found for condoning the delay for a period of more than 902 days after the impugned order was served upon the delay. As the appeal is barred by limitation, it deserves to be rejected on this ground alone - against assessee. Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of foreign travel expenses.2. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Foreign Travel Expenses:The assessee appealed against the disallowance of Rs. 1,40,889 on account of foreign travel expenses for the Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06. However, the appellate tribunal did not delve into the merits of this disallowance due to procedural issues, specifically the delay in filing the appeal.2. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was levied in relation to the disallowance of the foreign travel expenses. The tribunal dismissed the penalty appeal in limine due to non-appearance and non-prosecution by the assessee. The tribunal referred to the decision of the Delhi Bench in CIT v. Multiplan (India) (P.) Ltd. [1991] 38 ITD 320 and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT [1997] 223 ITR 480, emphasizing that the assessee seemed uninterested in pursuing the appeals.3. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:The quantum appeal filed by the assessee was delayed by 902 days. The tribunal noted that the assessee did not provide any reasonable cause or application for condonation of the delay. The tribunal cited several precedents, including Gopal Films v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 655, which emphasized that 'whenever a party wants delay to be condoned, he should show sufficient cause.' The tribunal highlighted that the onus is on the assessee to prove the existence of sufficient cause, and there is no presumption that the delay is always bona fide.The tribunal further referenced:- Sitaram Ramcharan v. M.N. Nagarshana AIR 1960 SC 260, stating the requirement to explain the whole period of delay.- CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra [2002] 257 ITR 773, emphasizing that the provisions of limitation must be applied with their rigour.- P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala AIR 1998 SC 2276, underscoring that the law of limitation must be applied strictly.- Sri Venkatesa Paper & Boards Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2006] 98 ITD 200 (Chennai), noting the necessity of diligence on the part of the appellant.- Vinay Extraction (P) Ltd. v. Vijay Khanna [2004] 271 ITR 450, stressing that sufficient cause must be shown with proper evidence.- Nihalkaran v. CWT [1989] 175 ITR 14, stating that the burden is on the party to clearly present all facts for condonation of delay.- Madhu Dadha v. Asstt. CIT, where the Madras High Court held that the delay must be justified with sufficient cause beyond the control of the party.The tribunal concluded that the assessee did not demonstrate any reasonable cause or diligence for the delay of 902 days. The appeal was thus dismissed as barred by limitation, and the tribunal refused to condone the delay.Conclusion:Both appeals were dismissed in limine due to procedural lapses, including the significant delay in filing the appeal and non-appearance by the assessee. The tribunal emphasized the necessity of showing sufficient cause for condonation of delay and the importance of diligence in pursuing legal remedies.