Case Law Details
The Puttur Co-operative Town Bank Limited Vs Director of Income-tax (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation) (ITAT Bangalore)
There is a delay of more than 700 days in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) (except for assessment year 2008-2009, wherein the delay is 651 days). The reasons stated for belated filing of the appeals before the CIT(A) is that by mistake the assessee has filed appeals as against orders passed u/s 271FA of the I.T. Act before the ITAT and the ITAT dismissed the appeal vide order dated 27.07.2018 stating that the appeal does not lie to the ITAT but to the CIT(A). However, we find that the assessee has not explained the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) from the date of receipt of order passed by the ITAT. In this context, it is relevant to note that the ITAT passed the order on 27.07.2018 and the appeals were instituted before the CIT(A) only on 09.05.2019, i.e., nearly 10 months from the date of receipt of the order of the ITAT.
The law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the dictum : vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt. The delay cannot be condoned simply because the assessee’s case is hard and calls for sympathy or merely out of benevolence to the party seeking relief in granting the indulgence and to the party seeking relief. In granting the indulgence and condoning the delay, it must be proved beyond the shadow of doubt that the assessee was diligent and was not guilty of negligence, whatsoever. The sufficient cause within the contemplation of the limitation provision must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the provisions. The cause for the delay in filing the appeal, which by due care and attention, could have been avoided, cannot be a sufficient cause within the meaning of the limitation provision. Where no negligence, or inaction, or want of bona fides can be imputed to the assessee, a liberal construction of the provisions has to be made in order to advance substantial justice. Seekers of justice must come with clean hands.
In the instant case, the assessee has not given any reasons in the condonation petition for condoning the delay of 10 months for filing the appeal before the CIT(A) (i.e., from the date of receipt of ITAT’s order). When the assessee does not give any reasons for the delay of 10 months from the date of receipt of the ITAT order, it is only negligence / inaction on the part of the assessee in fulfilling the statutory obligations. Hence, there is no sufficient / reasonable cause for condoning the delay of more than 700 days in filing appeals before the CIT(A). Therefore, we confirm the orders of the CIT(A). It is ordered accordingly.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
