Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2023 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 521 - HC - Income TaxCondonation of delay of 2139 days in filing the Appeal against the order of ITAT - as explained petitioner came to know that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal [2016 (10) TMI 1264 - ITAT CHENNAI] as being repetitive, only on receipt of the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [2022 (9) TMI 286 - ITAT CHENNAI], involving the same issue for other years - HELD THAT:- We find that the inordinate delay in filing the present Tax Case Appeal is neither due to paucity of time in view of the financial crisis and the proceedings under the IBC nor due to lack of knowledge of the error in dismissal of the appeal as being repetitive, but due to negligence. Secondly and importantly, we find that the reasons adduced are preposterous and lack bonafide inasmuch as the submission of the petitioner that it came to know that the dismissal of [2016 (10) TMI 1264 - ITAT CHENNAI] as repetitive, is incorrect and untrue for the reasons setout at paragraphs 5 to 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the Miscellaneous Petition, filed before the ITAT to reopen assessment would clearly reveal that the petitioner realised the error and after taking steps to redress the error/grievance by filing a miscellaneous petition before the Tribunal to restore, did not pursue it any further on its rejection. Having found that the reasons adduced are untrue and lacking bonafide we do not intend to exercise our discretion to condone the delay for it is trite law that while examining whether there was "sufficient cause" for the delay, the Courts would consider if the petitioner had been diligent and acted bonafide. We find that there is an inordinate delay of 2139 days and the reasons adduced are not convincing rather show that the petitioner was negligent, lethargic and casual in availing the remedy of appeal. More importantly, we are not convinced with the bonafide of the petitioner who had raised grounds which apart from being untrue, are mutually destructive and thus unacceptable. Yet another reason which would prompt us to observe that the miscellaneous petition lacks bonafide, apart from the fact that the reasons set out in the affidavit do not convince us, is that the present miscellaneous petition is apparently filed with a view to take advantage of the order of the Tribunal made pursuant to the order of this Court in the case of M/s.Marg Ltd. V. CIT [2020 (10) TMI 102 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] resulting in the claim of the petitioner under Section 14A of the IT Act, being accepted in terms of the above decision of this Court. Having succeeded for the other assessment years, the petitioner is now attempting to resurrect the appeal after almost 5 ½ years, which we would think, does not deserve any consideration. We find that the petitioner was not vigilant rather negligent and there is lack of bonafide even in explaining the delay. Petitioner had failed to demonstrate that there was "sufficient cause" for the delay of 2139 days in filing the Tax Case Appeal.
|