Appeal Dismissed Due to Time Bar, Emphasizing Diligence and Substantial Justice

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as time-barred by 3389 days for the assessment year 2001-02, despite the assessee's request for condonation of delay citing inadvertent error and personnel changes. The tribunal found the lack of cogent reasoning and supporting evidence for the delay, emphasizing the importance of diligence and absence of negligence. Despite reliance on case law, the delay of about 10 years was deemed unjustified, with the tribunal underscoring the need for substantial justice and control over delays. The appeal was ultimately dismissed due to the significant delay without compelling reasons.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeal for assessment year 2001-02.
2. Request for condonation of delay.
3. Lack of cogent reasoning for delay.
4. Examination of case law for condonation of delay.
5. Decision on whether to condone the delay.

Analysis:
1. The appeal by the assessee was directed against the order of the learned CIT-A dated 01/11/2004 for assessment year 2001-02, noting that the appeal was time-barred by 3389 days.
2. The assessee sought condonation of the delay, attributing it to inadvertent error and change in personnel handling tax matters, requesting the tribunal to admit the appeal.
3. Two affidavits were submitted, one mentioning inadvertent lapse and the other detailing the discovery of appeal papers prepared 10 years ago, along with evidence of fee payment, without providing a clear reason for not filing the appeal.
4. The tribunal heard both counsels on the issue of condonation of delay, noting the lack of cogent reasoning and supporting evidence for the delay, including discrepancies in fee payment documentation.
5. Despite the assessee's reliance on case laws for condonation of delay, the tribunal found the delay of about 10 years without sufficient cause, emphasizing the need for diligence and absence of negligence in seeking relief.
6. Referring to a third member decision of ITAT Chennai, the tribunal highlighted the importance of substantial justice, diligence, and control over the cause of delay in condoning delays.
7. Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that the delay of 3389 days did not merit condonation, dismissing the appeal as time-barred based on the lack of compelling reasons for the delay.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of delay in filing the appeal, the request for condonation of delay, the assessment of reasons provided, the examination of relevant case law, and the final decision to dismiss the appeal due to the significant delay without sufficient cause.

---