TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot indicating any serious ailments they are for general tests to be undergone by the Karta of the assessee HUF. Ld. AR squarely failed to brought to our attention to any such illness to substantiate the reasonableness in submission of the appeal before the tribunal. The prescription and lab reports submitted before us are dated in November 2022 i.e., 7 months prior to the date of filing of appeal on 06.06.2023 and the other prescription dated 05.07.2023 a/w lab reports dated 21.07.2023 i.e., after one month from the filing of appeal, are regarding general checkup and tests thus, are not substantiating the aspect that the Karta of the assessee HUF was under serious illness thereby helpless in signing and filing the appeal from 21.03.2023 (da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER PER ARUN KHODPIA, AM: The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (in short CIT(A) ) dated 21.03.2023 u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short 'The Act') for the assessment year 2017-18, which in turn has arisen from the order u/s. 143(3) of Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 4(1), Raipur, (In short The AO ) dated 26.12.2019. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: 1. That the CIT(A) has erred in facts as well as in law, in confirming the action of the Id AO of not allowing the exemption u/s. 54F of Rs. 2,81,82,802/- claimed by the assessee. 2. The appellant craves leave, to add, urge, alt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was filed by the assessee with a delay of 17 days. When this infirmity was confronted to Ld. AR of the assessee, in explanation an application requesting for condonation of delay a/w affidavit of the Karta of assessee HUF is submitted before us, the same is extracted as under: 7. With the aforesaid application of condonation of delay, Ld. AR also submitted copies of prescription from doctor s a/w lab tests reports of the assessee dated 21.07.2023 and 15.11.2022. It was the contention of Ld. AR that the Karta of the assessee HUF is an elderly person of 72 years of age, who was also unwell and, therefore, the appellate document send by the counsel of the assessee could not be signed and submitted in time therefore, the delay caused was unint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thin the prescribed due date for filing of the appeal but the appeal could be finally filed after 17 days from the prescribed due date i.e., on 06.06.2023. 10. The contentions of the assessee that the Karta of the assessee HUF was not well at the time of filing of the appeal for which copies of certain medical prescriptions and medical lab reports have been submitted before us along with the application for condonation of delay. It is further argued that due to old age of Karta and unwellness, he could not sign the documents of appeal in time, but the prescriptions submitted before us are not indicating any serious ailments they are for general tests to be undergone by the Karta of the assessee HUF. Ld. AR squarely failed to brought to our ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ckadaisical approach on the part of the assessee HUF in not preferring the appeal within the stipulated time period. 11. On this aspect, we place reliance on the order of coordinate bench of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Phoenix Mills Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT in ITA No. 6240/MUM/2007 for A.Y. 1999-2000, dated 23.03.2020, had held that where an application for condonation of delay has been moved bonafide, then, the Court would normally condone the delay, but where the delay has not been explained at all and in fact there is an unexplained and inordinate delay coupled with negligence or sheer carelessness, then, the 5 Jaspal Singh Hora (HUF) Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur ITA No. 183/RPR/2022 discretion of the court in such cases would normally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the delay in filing the present appeal, and had adopted a lackadaisical approach, therefore, there can be no reason to condone the delay of 17 days involved in preferring of the captioned appeal. 13. Also, we may herein draw support from a Third Member decision of the Tribunal, in the case of Jt. CIT Vs. Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd. (2007) 104 ITD 149 (Chennai), wherein a fine distinction was drawn between normal delay and inordinate delay. It was held as under: A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach, but in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
