Delay of 5638 Days in Filing Appeal Rejected; Covid Period Not Excluded Under Limitation Rules

ITAT Mumbai dismissed the application for condonation of delay of 5638 days in filing the appeal against the CIT(A) order. The tribunal held that the Covid period is not excluded as the limitation did not fall within 16.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. The delay was deemed extraordinary and not justified by bonafide reasons. The assessee, a corporate entity with expert advisors, failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay, having contested related issues in other proceedings. The appeal was filed only after an order affecting the set-off of brought forward losses, indicating opportunistic delay. Reliance on case laws by the assessee was found inapplicable. Consequently, the condonation application was rejected.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the delay of 5638 days in filing the appeal against the order under section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act can be condoned.Whether the assessee has provided sufficient and bona fide reasons for the delay in filing the appeal.Whether the appeal filed after such delay can be admitted and adjudicated on merit.Whether the lower authorities erred in confirming additions and disallowances made under various provisions including sections 144(1)(c), 40(a), and 69 of the Income Tax Act.Whether the assessee was denied sufficient opportunity of hearing before the learned CIT(A).Whether the assessee's contention of pursuing subsequent assessment proceedings in good faith justifies the delay in filing the present appeal.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The delay of approximately sixteen years (5638 days) in filing the appeal is "not ordinary but an extraordinary delay" and is not condoned.The period of Covid-19 pandemic (16.03.2020 to 28.02.2022) is not excluded from the delay calculation as exclusion applies only to applicants facing limitation during that period.The assessee, being a corporate entity with a full-fledged legal team, failed to show "bona fide or sufficient reasons" preventing timely filing of appeal.The plea that the assessee was contesting related issues in subsequent assessment proceedings under section 153C does not justify the delay in filing the present appeal.The appeal is dismissed as unadmitted due to non-condonation of delay; thus, the merits of additions and disallowances confirmed by lower authorities are not adjudicated.The contention of denial of sufficient opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A) is not accepted as the CIT(A) issued multiple notices and the assessee did not seek adjournments or file submissions.

RATIONALE:

The court applied the principles governing condonation of delay in filing appeals under the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that "sufficiency of reason or bona fides" is paramount rather than mere length of delay.It relied on established precedents which require a "reasonable or convincing reason" for delay, which was not demonstrated by the assessee despite having access to legal and professional resources.The exclusion of the Covid period from limitation applies only where limitation fell during that period, which was not the case here, thus no exclusion was granted.The court rejected the assessee's argument that pursuing subsequent proceedings under section 153C justified delay, noting that such a strategy does not excuse failure to file timely appeal against the original order.The decision reflects a strict approach towards delay in tax appeals, particularly where the appellant is a corporate entity capable of managing litigation effectively.No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded; the judgment follows the conventional doctrine on condonation of delay and appeal admission in tax proceedings.

---