2024 (10) TMI 346 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal dismissed for 346-day delay with no reasonable cause and contradictory false affidavits submitted

ITAT Cochin dismissed assessee's appeal filed with 346-day delay against assessment order u/s 143(3). The tribunal found no reasonable explanation for the ... Delay filling appeal against Orde dismissing the assessee’s appeal contesting his assessment u/s 143(3) - 346 day delay in filing the appeal - HELD THAT:- There is, to begin with, without doubt, no explanation for the 90 day period, i.e., even in excess of the 60 days statutorily allowed for filing the appeal, taken by the assessee even after the knowledge, on 28.10.2022, of the appeal being already delayed by months. Coming to the aspect of the period up to 28.10.2022, the Revenue’s report, uncontroverted, disproves the assessee’s affidavits dated 24.01.2023 and 18.04.2024. Per the latter, the assessee, in contradistinction to the former, avers of the date of his knowledge of the passing of the assessment for the relevant year as 24/11/2022, this time on the basis of the communication of the penalty orders u/ss. 270A/271AAC. The same, not called for, is incomprehensible and reprehensible. Once the assessee admittedly became aware of his assessment for the relevant year on 28/10/2022, how can the said date shift to another on the basis of another incident, again informing him the date of the assessment. No reason for the revised affidavit, which also bears no reference to the earlier, has been furnished. Much less called for by the Bench, the second affidavit, as it appears to us, stands filed to meet the observation by the Bench as to the assessee, rather than acting with alacrity in view of his appeal being already delayed, takes more than the regular time. The affidavit, clearly false, and filed on the sly, without bringing the changed date to the notice of the Bench, deserves highest condemnation. An affidavit is generally furnished at the instance of the Court where facts in the personal knowledge of the deponent cannot be otherwise proved, and the deponent is, before acceptance of his averments therein, liable to be cross-examined on his deposition. This has been abused by Sri Padmanathan to mislead the Court with untruth. Rather, on the difference in date, i.e., 14.11.2021, instead of 14.12.2021, being brought to his notice, he clarified it to be a typing error and, further, on being informed that it could not be so inasmuch as the affidavit was supported by a system report for the period 10.11.2021 to 15.11.2021, annexed along with, he, changing stance once again, would submit that he be allowed time to procure an affidavit with reference to 14.12.2021. Upon this, he was unable to answer as to how he could state so without consulting the record. Time was allowed, making it clear that he would be required to, instead, and in view of the definite evidence furnished by the Revenue, produce some evidence and, further, the deponent liable to be questioned. Needless to add, no material or deposition was advanced on the next date of hearing, where at it was closed. The affidavits, an explanation for condonation of delay, being found false, there is, thus, no explanation for the delay. No reasonable cause, thus, attends the delay, meriting condonation. Assessee appeal dismissed. Issues: Appeal against dismissal of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2017-18 due to delay in filing and validity of affidavits submitted.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by the Assessee challenging the Order by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dismissing the appeal contesting his assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2017-18. The delay in filing the appeal was a crucial issue raised by the Assessee, claiming that the delay should be calculated from a later date due to certain circumstances. The Assessee argued that the impugned order was not received timely, leading to the delay in filing the appeal. The Assessee's counsel provided explanations and affidavits to support their claim, but the Revenue presented a system-generated report showing the service of the impugned order on specific dates, contradicting the Assessee's arguments. The Tribunal revisited the proceedings multiple times, allowing the parties to submit final replies with materials. However, no new material was presented, and the Revenue confirmed the correctness of the service dates in their report.2. The Tribunal analyzed the explanations and affidavits provided by the Assessee and found discrepancies and contradictions in the dates mentioned. The Assessee's affidavits were found to be false and misleading, with the Assessee changing the date of knowledge of the impugned order in subsequent submissions. The Tribunal noted that the second affidavit filed by the Assessee seemed to be an attempt to rectify the delay issue without proper grounds. The Tribunal also criticized the Assessee's counsel for violating the code of conduct under the Advocate's Act by submitting misleading information. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of truthful affidavits and condemned the filing of false documents to mislead the Court.3. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that the affidavits provided by the Assessee were false, and no reasonable cause was presented to justify the delay in filing the appeal. As a result, the appeal filed by the Assessee was dismissed. The Tribunal highlighted the significance of accurate and truthful submissions in legal proceedings and emphasized the consequences of submitting false information. The Order was pronounced on May 31, 2024, under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the appeal, focusing on the delay in filing and the validity of the affidavits submitted by the Assessee, providing a comprehensive overview of the Tribunal's decision and the reasons behind it.