2019 (11) TMI 1435 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal Dismissed for Delay Without Reasonable Cause

Aneeka Universal P. Ltd. Versus Pr. CIT-9, Mumbai

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to provide a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the other ... Condonation of delay in filing appeal against Revision u/s 263 - delay of 191 days in filing the captioned appeal before the Tribunal - sufficient , reasonable and bonafide reason - HELD THAT:- When the issue of condonation of delay in filing of appeal comes, it is for the assessee to prove beyond doubt that it was diligent and was not guilty of negligence whatsoever and also, there is a reason which prevented the assessee from filing appeal within the time allowed under the Act. The reasons shown by the assessee are neither sufficient nor bonafide, rather it is telltale from the facts on record that the assessee had consciously taken a decision not to prefer appeal agasint the impugned order passed under section 263 of the Act. If assessee decided to abandon his right to appeal, he cannot be permitted to pursue that remedy again after considerable lapse of time, unless the reasons are bonafide. Finality of an order cannot be tinkered with at the whims of a party. We, therefore, are of the considered view that the reasons given by the assessee for not filing appeal within the time allowed under the Act, does not comes under the reasonable cause as provided under the Act, or as explained by the various courts and hence, we reject the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay in filing appeal. Reasons given by the assessee, in light of affidavit of the counsel that due to incorrect advice, the appeal could not be filed within the time allowed under the Act cannot be considered as sufficient and reasonable cause for condonation of delay in filing appeal and hence, we reject condonation application filed by the assessee and dismissed appeal of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Whether the order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.3. Legality of the deduction allowed under Section 57 of the Act for interest expenditure.4. Directions by the Pr. CIT to the AO to pass a fresh order regarding share application money.5. Whether the AO had already judiciously considered the issues set aside by the Pr. CIT.6. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the assessee.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Order Passed by the Pr. CIT under Section 263:The appellant challenged the legality of the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant contended that the order was illegal and bad in law. However, the Tribunal did not address this issue directly due to the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of delay.2. Erroneous and Prejudicial Order by the AO under Section 143(3):The appellant argued that the Pr. CIT erred in holding that the order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue due to the primary focus on the condonation of delay.3. Deduction under Section 57 for Interest Expenditure:The appellant contended that the Pr. CIT erred in holding that the AO's order allowing a deduction under Section 57 for interest expenditure was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. This issue was also not examined in detail due to the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of delay.4. Directions for Fresh Order on Share Application Money:The Pr. CIT directed the AO to pass a fresh order regarding share application money received from two entities. The appellant argued that these issues had already been examined by the AO. However, the Tribunal did not address this issue substantively due to the primary focus on the condonation of delay.5. Examination of Issues by the AO:The appellant claimed that the AO had already judiciously considered the issues set aside by the Pr. CIT. This contention was not examined in detail due to the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of delay.6. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:The appellant filed the appeal with a delay of 191 days and sought condonation of the delay. The appellant explained that the delay was due to incorrect advice from their consultant, who believed that no action was required against the Pr. CIT's order as the AO would reconsider the issues. The Tribunal analyzed the reasons for the delay and found that the appellant had taken a conscious decision not to file the appeal, hoping for a favorable outcome from the AO. The Tribunal concluded that the delay was not due to circumstances beyond the appellant's control and did not constitute a reasonable cause for condonation. The Tribunal cited various judicial precedents to support its decision and emphasized that the appellant's reasons for the delay were neither sufficient nor bona fide.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to provide a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the other grounds raised by the appellant on the merits of the issues were deemed academic and were not adjudicated. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.