2021 (11) TMI 917 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal dismisses appeals citing lack of justification for delay in filing, upholds CIT(A) decision.

Mr. C. Jegaveerapandian Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-I (2) Tuticorin

The Tribunal upheld the dismissal of appeals by the assessee, agreeing with the CIT(A) that there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing ... Condonation of delay in filing an appeal - delay of 10 years - sufficient cause to condone the delay explained or not? - HELD THAT:- Assessee knows that there are proceedings pending before the A.O. for which he has appeared already along with his C.A. and also other assessment years pending before the A.O - we are of the view that the assessee knowingly not to choose file an appeal in time before the Ld. CIT(A). Apart from that the assessee filed an affidavit before the ITAT, wherein he has stated in paragraph-I that he is away from family since 11.07.2001, which is factually not correct because the assessee has appeared before the A.O. on 19.03.2003, 18.10.2004, 26.02.2004 therefore, the plea of the assessee that he is away from the family cannot be accepted. As per the remand report submitted by the A.O. that the assessee suffering from sugar, joint pain since 20.01.2002 for that he is taking treatment from Dr. Muralidharan, BAMS and the assessee is visiting the hospital for the period from 20.01.2002 to 28.08.2010 as an outpatient. From the above, it is clear that his state of mind is perfect and he is taking treatment for his ill-health therefore, he must also aware that there was an assessment order and appeal also to be filed. After careful reading of the remand report and also detailed order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the assessee was away from the family for 10 years is not believable. For the condonation of the delay, the assessee has to show that there must be a sufficient cause to condone the delay. In this case, the assessee himself decided as per his affidavit not to go to his house knowingly that there must be an assessment order. No one is prevented the assessee to go to his house therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no sufficient cause to condone delay. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Whether the CIT(A) was correct in not condoning the delay in filing the appeals by the assessee.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Delay in Filing Appeals:The core issue in these appeals is whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was correct in rejecting the delay condonation petition filed by the assessee. The appeals pertain to the assessment years 1995-96 to 2002-03.Background:The assessee, an individual, underwent a survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 11.07.2001. Documents found during the survey led to the reopening of assessments for the years 1995-96 to 2002-03. The assessments were completed under sections 143(3) read with 147 and 144 read with 147 of the Act. Aggrieved by these orders, the assessee filed appeals on 21.09.2012, along with a delay condonation petition for 8½ years.CIT(A)'s Decision:The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals by rejecting the delay condonation petition on 19.12.2013. The assessee then approached the Tribunal, which remitted the issue of delay condonation back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.Remand Report:In compliance with the Tribunal's directions, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer (A.O.) to conduct an enquiry regarding the assessee’s claims in his affidavit. The A.O. submitted a remand report, which included statements from Dr. Muralidharan, BAMS, indicating that the assessee was undergoing ayurvedic treatment from 20.01.2002 to 28.08.2010. The A.O. also reported that the assessee could not produce evidence of staying in isolated places and that assessment orders were received by his family members.CIT(A)'s Detailed Order:The CIT(A), after considering the remand report, noted several inconsistencies and false statements in the assessee's affidavit. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee was actively participating in assessment proceedings up to 26.02.2004, contradicting his claim of leading an isolated life since 11.07.2001. The CIT(A) found that the assessee was aware of the assessment proceedings and chose not to file returns for certain years. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee's claims were false and that there was no sufficient cause for the delay. The appeals were dismissed in-limine.Tribunal's Decision:The Tribunal examined the records and the submissions from both sides. It noted that the assessee had appeared before the A.O. on multiple occasions and was aware of the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of being away from the family was not credible, given his active participation in the proceedings and regular medical treatment. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee had not demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay and upheld the dismissal of the appeals.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the assessee knowingly chose not to file appeals in time and failed to provide a credible reason for the delay. The appeals were dismissed for lack of sufficient cause to condone the delay.Order Pronounced:The judgment was pronounced on 24th September 2021 in Chennai, dismissing all the appeals filed by the assessee.