Appeals Under IT Act Section 263 Dismissed for Delay

The Appellate Tribunal ITAT BOMBAY-C ruled that the appeals filed by the assessee under section 263 of the IT Act for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75 were time-barred by approximately 3 years. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to submit an application for condonation of delay promptly with the appeals, and the subsequent filing of an affidavit explaining the delay was deemed an afterthought. Despite the assessee's argument, the Tribunal held that there was no sufficient cause for the delay and dismissed the appeals, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing appeals.

---

---

Issues:
1. Timeliness of the appeals filed by the assessee under section 263 of the IT Act for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT BOMBAY-C pertains to the timeliness of appeals filed by the assessee against the consolidated order of the CIT, Bombay City V, under section 263 of the IT Act for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75. The primary issue raised was whether the appeals were time-barred by approximately 3 years, as contended by the ld. Deptl. Rep., due to the absence of an application for condonation of delay. The assessee, represented by its counsel, argued that an affidavit explaining the delay was being submitted, citing a decision of the Gujarat High Court. The Tribunal noted that the appeals were indeed time-barred, as no application for condonation of delay was filed with the appeals, nor was one submitted subsequently. The Tribunal rejected the contention that the delay was due to the impression that appeals were to be filed after the ITO gave effect to the order, emphasizing the statutory timeline for filing appeals under section 253(3) of the Act.

Moreover, the Tribunal observed that even if the cause for delay was as claimed by the assessee, it should have been stated in an application for condonation of delay filed promptly with the appeals. The Tribunal found the filing of the affidavit at the end of the appeal hearing to be an afterthought, indicating that the assessee was aware of the limitation issue but failed to address it in a timely manner. The Tribunal further held that the assessee's actions were contradictory, as it had filed appeals against the CIT's order under section 263, indicating awareness of the correct appeal procedure. The Tribunal distinguished the case cited by the assessee from the Gujarat High Court, emphasizing that the circumstances were not analogous, and there was no sufficient cause presented by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeals.

Conclusively, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as time-barred, ruling that there was no sufficient cause or reason for the delay in filing the appeals against the CIT's order under section 263. The decision was based on the failure of the assessee to adhere to the statutory timeline for filing appeals and the lack of a valid explanation for the delay.

---