Income tax appeal dismissed for failure to justify delay despite seeking condonation under Section 260A.

The court dismissed the income tax appeal due to the appellant's failure to adequately explain and justify the delay in filing, despite seeking condonation of delay under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found the appellant's explanation unsatisfactory, emphasizing that the appellant's lack of action and failure to inquire about the appeal for over 2 and 1/2 years contributed significantly to the delay. The court rejected the application for condonation, attributing the delay to both the advocate's negligence and the appellant's inaction, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 31.8.2009 for the block period ending on 24.4.2003, after search and seizure operations under Section 132 of the I.T. Act and a survey under Section 133A (1) on the assessee's clinic.

The appellant filed an income tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 31.8.2009 for the block period ending on 24.4.2003. The appeal was reported to be barred by a delay of 2 years and 256 days. The appellant sought condonation of delay, providing an explanation through a supplementary affidavit. The affidavit mentioned that the order was received by a clerk in the advocate's office in October 2009 but was not informed to the appellant due to the clerk leaving the job. The appellant claimed to have discovered the non-filing of the appeal only on 26.9.2012. The court found the explanation unsatisfactory as the appellant should have inquired about the appeal filing status earlier, considering the seriousness of the matter.

The court noted that the appellant's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal was inadequate. The appellant's reliance on the negligence of the advocate was not considered sufficient, as the appellant himself failed to inquire about the appeal for over 2 and 1/2 years. The court highlighted that filing an appeal involves engaging a High Court advocate, paying professional fees, court fees, and preparing necessary documents, which the appellant should have been aware of. The court emphasized that the appellant's lack of action and delay in making inquiries about the appeal were significant contributing factors to the overall delay.

The court rejected the application for condonation of delay, citing insufficient explanation for the delay in filing the income tax appeal. The court emphasized that the negligence of both the advocate and the appellant played a role in the delay. Despite the appellant's argument that the advocate's negligence should not penalize the appellant, the court found the overall delay inexcusable. Consequently, the court dismissed the income tax appeal due to the failure to adequately explain and justify the delay in filing.

---