Attivo Protezione Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
The appeal filed by Attivo Protezione Pvt Ltd challenged the order dated 29.09.2021 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2018-19. The primary issue concerned the condonation of a substantial delay of 1,370 days (over 3.5 years) in filing the appeal. The assessee attributed the delay solely to the alleged failure of its tax consultant to advise remedial action after the CIT(A) order.
The ITAT examined the delay under the framework of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which permits condonation of delay if the appellant demonstrates “sufficient cause.” Judicial precedents emphasize that “sufficient cause” does not include negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fide effort on the part of the appellant. The Tribunal cited multiple judgments, including Basawaraj vs Special Land Acquisition Officer (2014), N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy (1998), State of West Bengal vs Howrah Municipality (1972), and others, establishing that prolonged or unexplained delays cannot be condoned merely on grounds of sympathetic circumstances or reliance on a third-party consultant.
The ITAT noted that the assessee had failed to file an affidavit explaining the delay at the time of application, had not made sufficient efforts to pursue the appeal earlier, and had neglected statutory obligations despite attending proceedings under section 250. While the Tribunal acknowledged that the delay was not malafide, it emphasized that negligence on the part of the company could not be excused simply because the tax consultant did not advise action. Courts have consistently held that delay must be justified day-by-day, and parties cannot rely on generalized reasons or passive reliance on advisors to excuse inordinate delays.
