2025 (7) TMI 1738 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal dismissed for over two-year delay in filing under Section 143(1); negligence and non-compliance cited

Shri Govind Guru University Versus The Dy. CIT, Circle-2, Exemption, Ahmedabad

The ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee trust due to a delay of over two years in filing against the intimation under section ... Delay of more than two years in filing appeal as against the intimation passed u/s. 143(1) - assessee claimed that the University is coordinating with 286 colleges affiliated with it and its office was shifted to a new place at a small village wherein postal delivers remaining undelivered. Further the email addresses and mobile numbers of earlier officers were not changed in the Income Tax Portal, the same were changed on 14-02-2025 - Also staff of the University were only five persons as the University were coordinating with 286 colleges affiliated with the University, hence could not concentrate on the Income Tax Affair HELD THAT:- The present appeal filed by the assessee on 24-03-2025, whereas incharge Vice Chancellor was very much available. Further the assesse has not produced before us the copy of exemptions provided u/s. 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act. In the absence of the same, there is clear negligence on the part of the Assessee University in not complying to the statutory compliances and details under the provisions of law. Appeal filed by the Assessee Trust is hereby dismissed in limine. ISSUES: Whether delay of more than two years in filing appeal against intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act can be condoned.What constitutes 'sufficient cause' under section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act for condonation of delay in filing appeal.Whether negligence or carelessness of authorized representatives or officers can be grounds for condonation of delay.Whether failure to produce exemption certificate under section 10(23C)(iiiab) affects maintainability of appeal. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The delay of more than two years in filing the appeal was not condoned as the appellant failed to demonstrate 'sufficient cause' within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act; the delay was held to be 'inordinate' and not prosecuted with 'due care'.'Sufficient cause' means a cause 'beyond the control of the party' and requires that the party must have acted 'diligently and not remained inactive'; mere postal delays, office shifting, or limited staff strength were insufficient to establish sufficient cause.Negligence or carelessness of lawyers or authorized representatives cannot be grounds to condone inordinate delay, as held by the Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar and Anr. Vs Ved Prakash.Inordinate delay cases require a cautious approach, distinguishing them from trivial delays which may be liberally condoned; this principle was reiterated relying on Supreme Court precedents.Failure to produce exemption certificate under section 10(23C)(iiiab) and lack of statutory compliance demonstrated negligence on the part of the appellant, impacting the maintainability of the appeal. RATIONALE: The Court applied the legal framework under section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act and section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing the requirement of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay.Precedents from the Supreme Court were relied upon, including the distinction between trivial and inordinate delays, and the principle that negligence of legal representatives is not a ground for condonation.The Court adopted a pragmatic approach, assessing whether the appellant acted as a 'prudent or reasonable man' and whether the delay could have been avoided by due care and attention.The Court noted that the appellant took a 'conscious and considered decision' not to file the appeal within time, which negated the claim of sufficient cause.The absence of exemption documentation and failure to appoint an authorized representative timely were taken as indicators of negligence and lack of bona fide prosecution of the appeal.