Appeals Dismissed for Delay and Lack of Jurisdiction. Fundamental defects not curable.

The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed due to inordinate delay in filing and lack of jurisdiction by the ACIT, Circle-39, Kolkata. The Tribunal held that fundamental jurisdictional defects are not curable under Section 292B and that condoning the delay would contravene judicial discipline and earlier orders. Consequently, the cross objections by the Assessee were also dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing of appeals by the Revenue.
2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) filing the appeal.
3. Applicability of Section 292B of the Income Tax Act.
4. Condonation of delay by the Tribunal.
5. Cross objections by the Assessee.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing of Appeals by the Revenue:
The Revenue filed appeals with a delay of 1488 and 1477 days. No formal affidavit for condonation of delay was filed. The Revenue's representative pointed out a note seeking condonation, explaining that the delay was due to the transfer of jurisdiction from ACIT, Circle-39, Kolkata to ITO, Ward-44(2), Kolkata, which caused confusion and delay in filing the appeal.

2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer Filing the Appeal:
The Tribunal had previously dismissed the Revenue's appeals on the ground that the ACIT, Circle-39, Kolkata, did not have jurisdiction over the case when the appeal was filed. This dismissal was based on a CBDT Notification dated 30.07.2002, which transferred jurisdiction to ITO, Ward-44(2), Kolkata. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of West Bengal Electricity Board Vs. DCIT [278 ITR 218 (Cal)].

3. Applicability of Section 292B of the Income Tax Act:
The Revenue argued that the appeal should be treated as valid under Section 292B, which allows for the curing of procedural defects. However, the Tribunal noted that fundamental jurisdictional infirmities are not curable under Section 292B, citing several judicial precedents, including Sisir Kumar vs. CIT [170 ITR 80 (Ker)], Peerulal Mohanlal [257 ITR 198 (Raj.)], and others.

4. Condonation of Delay by the Tribunal:
The Tribunal examined whether there was a reasonable cause for the delay. It was noted that the Tribunal had already dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction and that the Revenue did not act with due diligence to correct the filing error. The Tribunal emphasized that condoning the delay would unsettle the earlier order and render the Hon'ble High Court's dismissal of the Revenue's appeal infructuous. The Tribunal cited various judgments, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd AIR 1962 SC 361, which held that a cause for delay that could have been avoided with due care and attention is not sufficient for condonation.

5. Cross Objections by the Assessee:
Since the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals on the grounds of non-condonation of delay, the cross objections filed by the Assessee were also dismissed.

Conclusion:
The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed due to the inordinate delay in filing and lack of jurisdiction by the ACIT, Circle-39, Kolkata. The Tribunal held that fundamental jurisdictional defects are not curable under Section 292B and that condoning the delay would contravene judicial discipline and the earlier orders of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court. Consequently, the cross objections by the Assessee were also dismissed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 15/09/2014.

---