CA's ignorance of section 263 direct appeal provisions rejected as insufficient cause for 357-day delay

ITAT Surat dismissed the assessee's appeal filed with 357 days delay. The assessee claimed their CA was unaware of direct appeal provisions to ITAT against orders under section 263. The Tribunal rejected this explanation as unbelievable, noting a practicing CA should know appellate procedures. No supporting evidence was provided to substantiate the claim. The Tribunal found the assessee waited for fresh assessment order and filed appeals before both CIT(A) and ITAT when no relief was granted. The reasons were deemed general, self-serving, and unconvincing, constituting gross negligence rather than sufficient cause under section 253(5).

---

---

Issues Involved:
Delay in filing appeal before ITAT

Analysis:
The appeal before ITAT stemmed from an order passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017-18. The appellant raised grounds challenging the order, citing lack of opportunity and error in invoking section 263. The appeal was delayed by 357 days, prompting the appellant to file an affidavit for condonation of delay. The appellant claimed that the delay was due to the Chartered Accountant's lack of awareness regarding the direct appeal process to ITAT against the section 263 order. However, the Tribunal found this explanation unconvincing, noting the lack of supporting evidence and the appellant's delayed response upon receiving the assessment order. The Tribunal emphasized that condonation of delay should not be granted solely based on the litigant's lack of benefit from lodging a late appeal.

The Tribunal referred to various legal precedents, including the case of Basawaraj, highlighting the importance of demonstrating "sufficient cause" for delay. The Tribunal underscored that negligence, lack of diligence, and inactivity could not justify condoning the delay. The Tribunal also discussed the public policy basis of the law of limitation, emphasizing the need for finality in litigation. Additionally, the Tribunal cited the Collector, Land Acquisition case to caution against using a liberal approach to defeat the law of limitation. Ultimately, the Tribunal refused to condone the delay, considering the appellant's negligence and lackadaisical approach in filing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the uncondoned delay. The decision was based on the appellant's failure to establish sufficient cause for the delay, as required by the law. The Tribunal's analysis underscored the importance of diligence and timely compliance with legal procedures, especially in matters of appeal timelines.

---