2024 (6) TMI 1213 - AT - Income Tax

Appeals dismissed as time-barred after 7-year delay due to assessee's negligent attitude and failure to inquire

ITAT Indore dismissed appeals filed with delays of 7 years 104 days and 6 years 83 days, rejecting condonation of delay application. The tribunal found ... Condonation of delay filing appeal before ITAT - Delay of 7 years & 104 days and 6 years & 83 days in filing the captioned ITAs - HELD THAT:- In the present case, though the assessee is claiming that the delay in filing has occurred solely due to lapse of counsel but the fact is that the assessee has also contributed to a large extent in the process of delay. As can be seen from Ld. DR’s arguments that the assessee has filed appeals of other two years i.e. AY 2011-12 and 2013-14 on 07.09.2022 and even at that stage, had not taken care to enquire and see the status of present appeals. This clearly shows lethargic attitude of assessee. The grossly negligent attitude of assessee is further discernible from one more fact. As can be seen from first pages of impugned orders reproduced earlier in Para No. 4(iv) of this order, the assessee received impugned orders on 20.01.2016 and 13.02.2017. Thus, when the assessee received later order on 13.02.2017, wasn’t it a duty of assessee to enquire from his counsel about filing status of appeal against former order received on 20.01.2016? Had the assessee exercised any care at that stage itself, he would have not only rushed to file appeal against impugned order dated 20.01.2016 with a smaller delay but also could ensure timely filing of appeal against order dated 13.02.2017. However, the assessee did not exercise any such care even at stage and only continued with its negligent or lethargic attitude. Therefore, the assessee is also a contributor in causing delay in filing. DR is very much correct in submitting that the assessee does not deserve any sympathy in present cases. Needless to mention that there is a whopping delay of more than 7 or 6 years. Consequently, we are inclined to reject the assessee’s condonation prayer and dismiss these appeals as being time-barred. Issues Involved:1. Delay in filing appeals.2. Condonation of delay.3. Attribution of delay to counsel's negligence.4. Assessee's responsibility in monitoring legal matters.5. Judicial precedents on condonation of delay.Detailed Analysis:1. Delay in Filing Appeals:The appeals were filed with significant delays of 7 years & 104 days and 6 years & 83 days, respectively. The registry flagged these appeals as time-barred.2. Condonation of Delay:The assessee submitted a condonation application, supported by affidavits from the assessee and previous counsel, attributing the delay to the counsel's failure to file the appeals on time. The counsel claimed that the delay was due to ignorance on the part of his office staff, who failed to file the appeals and subsequently left the service without updating the status.3. Attribution of Delay to Counsel's Negligence:The assessee argued that the delay was solely due to the counsel's negligence, constituting a 'sufficient cause' for condonation. The counsel's affidavit confirmed that he was responsible for the income-tax affairs and that the impugned orders were handed over to him for filing the appeals, which were not filed due to his staff's oversight.4. Assessee's Responsibility in Monitoring Legal Matters:The Revenue opposed the condonation, arguing that the delays were 'inordinate long delays' and that the assessee, being a company with adequate staff, should have monitored the status of the appeals. The Revenue highlighted that the assessee had filed appeals for other assessment years (AY 2011-12 and 2013-14) in a timely manner, indicating negligence in the present cases. The Revenue also pointed out that the assessee received the impugned orders on specific dates and should have inquired about the status of the appeals from the counsel.5. Judicial Precedents on Condonation of Delay:The Tribunal considered the landmark judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji and others, which favors condonation in appropriate situations but emphasizes caution to avoid giving concessions to erring parties. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in Mani Mandir Sewa Nyas Samiti Ramghat Ayodhya Vs. CIT and Royal Stitches (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, which denied condonation for inordinate delays without credible explanations. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's negligence contributed significantly to the delay, and the reasons provided were insufficient to justify condonation.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as time-barred, citing the grossly negligent attitude of the assessee and the lack of 'sufficient cause' for the delay. The decision emphasized the need for vigilance and timely action in legal matters, aligning with judicial precedents that discourage condonation of inordinate delays without credible explanations. The order was pronounced in open court on 23.01.2024.