ITAT rejects firm's application to condone 690-day delay in filing appeal citing lack of bonafide reasons

ITAT Raipur rejected the assessee firm's application for condonation of 690-day delay in filing appeal. The tribunal found that the delay was not due to bonafide reasons, rejecting the claim that the firm's accountant failed to inform partners about the CIT(Appeals) order. The presence of a chartered accountant further disproved the assessee's claim of being unaware of the order. The tribunal emphasized that limitation law must be construed strictly and delay cannot be condoned mechanically, as it affects parties' rights. The substantial delay was deemed unreasonable and beyond normal human conduct, warranting rejection of the condonation application.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the appeal filed by an assessee firm against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) arising from an intimation issued by the Centralized Processing Center for the assessment year 2019-20.

Grounds of Appeal:
The assessee challenged the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT (A) regarding the disallowance of Rs. 19,84,415 on account of delayed deposit of employees' contribution towards Provident Fund/ESI.

Factual Background:
The assessee e-filed its return of income for A.Y. 2019-20, but the CPC disallowed the claim for deduction of delayed deposit of employees' share of contribution towards ESI/PF, resulting in an increased income determination.

Appeal Process:
The assessee appealed to the CIT(Appeals) but was unsuccessful, leading to further appeal by the assessee against the order.

Delay in Filing Appeal:
The delay of 690 days in filing the appeal was attributed to the accountant's failure to inform the partners about the CIT(Appeals) order, which was received late due to an email issue.

Condonation of Delay:
The assessee sought condonation of the delay, claiming it was due to bona fide reasons, while the Departmental Representative objected to it.

Judicial Analysis:
The Judicial Member analyzed the reasons for the delay and found the explanation lacking in justifiability, citing negligence on the part of the assessee firm.

Legal Precedents:
Referring to legal precedents, the Judicial Member emphasized the need for sufficient cause for condonation of delay, highlighting the importance of diligence in adhering to statutory timelines.

Decision and Dismissal:
Ultimately, the Judicial Member declined to condone the delay of 690 days, dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation, without delving into the merits of the case.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee firm for A.Y. 2019-20 was dismissed due to the inordinate delay in filing, as per the observations made during the proceedings.

Separate Judgment:
The judgment was pronounced by Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member, on December 5th, 2023.

---