2011 (2) TMI 1607 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal Dismissed for Delay in Filing: ITAT Hyderabad Upholds Revenue's Right

Bartronics India Ltd. Versus ACIT, Central Circle -5, Hyderabad.

Bartronics India Ltd. Versus ACIT, Central Circle -5, Hyderabad. - TMI Issues:1. Delay of 561 days in filing the appeal.2. Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.3. Merits of the case based on the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's own case.4. Revenue's right over tax revenue due to delay in filing the appeal.Analysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad was directed against the order of the CIT (A)-I, Hyderabad for the assessment year 2005-06, with a significant delay of 561 days in filing the appeal. The assessee sought condonation of the delay by explaining that the order of the CIT (A) was misplaced by a clerk, leading to the delay in filing. The assessee also argued that the issue in question was covered by the Tribunal's decision in their own case dated 28-8-2009. On the contrary, the departmental representative contended that the assessee failed to provide sufficient reasons for the delay, emphasizing that each day's delay must be justified. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee can file an appeal beyond the stipulated time with a petition to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, mere filing of the petition does not automatically entitle the assessee for admission of the appeal. It was observed that the reasons presented by the assessee for the delay were not convincing, indicating negligence and carelessness on their part. Citing precedents, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of a sufficient cause to condone the delay, emphasizing that the revenue's right over tax revenue should not be disturbed lightly due to delay in filing appeals.The Tribunal referred to the case of Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Limited vs. ACIT and the judgment in Ramlal & Others vs. Rawa Coals Fields Limited to support the revenue's stand on the issue of delay. It was emphasized that the expiration of the limitation period created a vested right for the revenue, and such rights accrued by lapse of time should not be lightly disturbed. In this case, the Tribunal found that the delay of 561 days was primarily due to the negligence of the assessee, leading to a refusal to condone the delay. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal declined to delve into the merits of the case due to the un-admitted appeal on the grounds of limitation. The order was pronounced on 25-2-2010, upholding the dismissal of the assessee's appeal.