2022 (10) TMI 1223 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT dismisses application for condonation of 380 days delay citing insufficient reasons and lack of prima facie case

M/s. Rarefield Engineers Pvt Ltd. Versus ACIT Company Circle-V (3), Chennai

ITAT Chennai dismissed the assessee's application for condonation of 380 days delay in filing appeal. The Tribunal held that while courts have power to ... Condonation of delay of 380 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal - eligible reasons for delay - HELD THAT:- In a case, where, for the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, the appeal could not be filed, then the Courts are well equipped with power to condone the delay, if the petitioner explains the delay in filing of the appeal with a reasonable cause. However, there is no law or mandate in the Act, to condone the delay in each and every case. But, it depends upon facts of each case and the reasons given by the parties for condonation of delay. Therefore, one has to go by the facts of its own case and the reasons given by the petitioner for condonation of delay. In this case, on perusal of reasons given by the assessee for delay in filing of the appeal, we find that although it appears, the assessee is not deriving any benefit by not filing the appeal within the due date prescribed under the Act, but, from contents of petition filed by the assessee, we could easily make out a case that the assessee has made an afterthought to file the appeal against the order of the CIT(A). Therefore, in our considered view, for these vague reasons, such huge delay of 380 days in filing of the appeal, cannot be condoned. We are of the considered view that the assessee has failed to make out a prima facie case for condonation of delay of 380 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. Further, the reasons given by the assessee in the affidavit does not come under reasonable cause as prescribed under the Act, for condonation of delay. Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.2. Addition towards unexplained cash credit in the assessment year 2010-11.Condonation of Delay:The appeal was filed by the assessee against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee sought condonation of a 380-day delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee claimed that the delay was due to professional advice against filing further appeal until confirmation letters from creditors were obtained. However, the Tribunal found the reasons for the delay not bona fide, stating that the delay was not intentional and did not serve any undue benefit. The Tribunal cited legal principles emphasizing that rules of limitation are not intended to deprive parties of their rights but to prevent dilatory tactics. Despite the assessee's arguments, the Tribunal concluded that the delay could not be condoned due to the vague reasons provided, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.Unexplained Cash Credit Addition:The appeal also challenged the addition of Rs. 23,40,000 as unexplained cash credit in the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by not considering the details provided, including bank statements showing borrowings and repayments by cheque. The assessee argued that the bank statement entries proved the genuineness of the transactions, supported by confirmation letters from lenders and ledger printouts. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the addition, stating that the genuineness of lenders could not be proven as the bank statements of lenders were not furnished. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal, maintaining the addition of Rs. 23,40,000 as unexplained cash credit to the income of the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11.In summary, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, both on the grounds of condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the addition towards unexplained cash credit. The decision highlighted the importance of genuine reasons for delay in filing appeals and the necessity to provide sufficient evidence to support claims regarding financial transactions to avoid additions to income.