Tribunal denies condonation of delay petitions under Section 254(2) of Income-tax Act

The Tribunal dismissed all condonation of delay petitions and corresponding Miscellaneous Applications, citing lack of justification for the nearly three-year delay in filing. It held that Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act does not empower condonation of such delays. The decision was pronounced on 20th March 2020.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing Miscellaneous Applications (MAs).
2. Power of the Tribunal to condone delay under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Miscellaneous Applications (MAs):

At the outset, the Tribunal noted that there were three Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) and corresponding condonation of delay petitions filed by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that these MAs were time-barred with a delay of 2 years and 11 months. The original order of the Tribunal was pronounced on 01.02.2013, and the MAs should have been filed by 01.02.2017. However, the assessee filed these applications on 30.12.2019.

The assessee argued for condonation of this delay under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, citing internal disputes and lack of awareness about the Tribunal's order until 30.12.2019. The assessee relied heavily on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji & Ors., which emphasizes sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

2. Power of the Tribunal to Condon Delay Under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

The Revenue opposed the condonation, arguing that Section 254(2) does not confer the Tribunal with the power to condone delays beyond the prescribed period. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue, highlighting that the power to condone delays is explicitly provided under Section 253(5) for appeals and cross-objections but not under Section 254(2) for MAs.

The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Pune Tribunal in TDK Electronics AG Vs. ACIT, which held that the Tribunal could only exercise the power to condone delays if explicitly provided in the statute. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee failed to provide any judicial precedent where delay under Section 254(2) was condoned.

3. Compliance with the Directions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court:

The Tribunal acknowledged the directions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, which mandated the Tribunal to hear and dispose of the applications by 24.03.2020, provided the assessee deposited Rs. 25 lakhs with the Tax Recovery Officer by 23.03.2020. The Tribunal noted the compliance of the assessee in depositing the amount but proceeded to hear the applications on their merits.

Upon hearing both parties and considering the judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal found that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were general and unsupported by evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that the law supports vigilant and bona fide assessees, and in this case, the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the delay.

The Tribunal also distinguished the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji & Ors., noting that the delay in that case was only four days, whereas, in the present case, it was nearly three years. The Tribunal concluded that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay and dismissed the condonation petitions.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed all the condonation of delay petitions and the corresponding Miscellaneous Applications. The Tribunal held that the inordinate delay was not justified, and there was no provision under Section 254(2) to condone such delays. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in open court on 20th March 2020.

---