2022 (8) TMI 1302 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal Dismissed Due to Delay & Lack of Cooperation - Importance of Timely Compliance & Justifications

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessee due to a substantial delay of 2985 days in filing, lack of cooperation in assessment proceedings, ... Condonation of delay filling appeal before ITAT - delay of 2985 days in filing the appeal by the assessee - HELD THAT:- It is appropriate to quote at this stage the legal maxim “VIGILANTIBUS, NON. DORMIENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT” which means, law will help only those who are vigilant. Law will not assist those who are careless of his/her right. Only those persons, who are watchful and careful of using his/her rights, are entitled to the benefits of law. Thus law confers rights on persons who are vigilant of their rights. The assessee could not demonstrate the reasons for non appearance before the lower authorities as well as before this Tribunal and the reasons stated in the affidavit filed by the assessee is not reasonable cause to condone the huge delay of 2985 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. Further there is no supporting affidavit of the so called accountant Mr. Parashottambhai Rajgor who alleged to have not intimated the receipt of the assessment order, as well as the appellate order to the assessee. In the absence of the same, the reasons given by the assessee is not convincing and therefore the delay of 2985 days in filing the above appeal cannot be condoned. Appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed. Issues:1. Delay of 2985 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.2. Failure of the assessee to respond to notices and appear before authorities.3. Justifiability of reasons provided in the affidavit for the delay.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by the Assessee against the ex parte Assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2007-08, with a significant delay of 2985 days. The Affidavit filed by the Assessee cited reasons such as reliance on an accountant who failed to make proper submissions, lack of education in tax compliances, and being unaware of outstanding demands due to change of address. The Assessee claimed to have appointed a new tax consultant after the bank account was seized, leading to the realization of the situation. However, the Tribunal found the reasons provided in the Affidavit lacking material evidence and not constituting a reasonable cause for the substantial delay.2. Throughout the proceedings, the Assessee displayed a pattern of non-cooperation by failing to respond to multiple notices and not appearing before the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Assessee, engaged in trading in insecticides and seeds, filed the Return of Income but did not comply with subsequent notices and requests for details. The Assessing Officer made additions to the assessed income due to unexplained purchases and sundry creditors, leading to penalty proceedings. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the additions as the Assessee did not respond to multiple hearing notices, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.3. The Assessee attempted to justify the delay by blaming the accountant and citing lack of awareness, but the Tribunal emphasized the principle of 'VIGILANTIBUS, NON. DORMIENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT,' which underscores that law aids only those who are vigilant of their rights. The Tribunal noted the lack of supporting evidence from the accountant mentioned in the Affidavit and deemed the reasons insufficient to condone the delay. The Tribunal concluded that the Assessee's failure to provide convincing justifications for the delay rendered the appeal not maintainable, leading to its dismissal.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessee due to the substantial delay in filing, lack of cooperation in the assessment proceedings, and insufficient justifications provided in the Affidavit. The decision highlighted the importance of diligence and timely compliance in legal matters, emphasizing the need for valid reasons supported by evidence to warrant condonation of delays in legal proceedings.