TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal. It is the primary duty of the assessee to establish sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time. The reason advanced by the assessee is very vague and cannot be said that the assessee is actually interested in pursuing the issue before this Tribunal. Thus, in the present case, there is no sufficient cause for presenting the appeal belatedly before the Tribunal. Accordingly, we decline to condone the delay of 288 days. We are of the opinion that the assessee being a private limited company, which was assisted by group of Advocates and Chartered Accountants and in such circumstances it cannot be said that the assessee is not aware of the necessity of filing the appeal against the order passed by the CIT u/s 263 of the Act, and it cannot be said that the case of this appeal alone was slipped away from the assessee s mind and he could not take remedial measure to file appeal before this Tribunal. AR pleaded before us that adjudication may be given on merits, even if the appeal is dismissed on condonation, to complete the legal proceedings. At this stage, we are refraining from going into the merits of the ground raised by the assessee on the addition propose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of debentures is a statutorily admissible claim in the year of issue in which such expenditure is incurred without resorting to amortization of such expenditure. ii) the interest accrued on the debentures were claimed and allowed proportionately for each year during the period of the debentures from 2012-13 to 2016-17 iii) the payment of interest has suffered deduction of tax at source which are remitted in Government Account fulfilling the legal requirements; and iv) all transactions pertaining to receipts from debenture holders and repayment thereof as also interest thereon are fully by way of bank transactions. 5. In this connection, a true copy of the detailed reply submitted by the appellant to the Commissioner vide letter dated 22.11.2016 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-B. It is humbly prayed that the grounds urged therein may be treated as part of these grounds. 6. Without prejudice, it is respectfully submitted that a perusal of the order u/s.263 impugned herein would show that there is failure on the part of the respondent to consider the objections contained in Annex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the eligibility for deduction, would be arrived at by the Assessing Officer after granting the assessee an opportunity of being heard . The appellant bonafide believed that the above finding was confined to verification of books of account already accepted by the Assessing Officer when the Assessment Order passed vide order dated 28.02.2015. The appellant was not aware, nor was informed that the order u/s 263 is an appealable order before this Hon'ble Tribunal. The Assessing Officer passed order dated 31.08.2017 by giving effect to the order u/s 263 by making various observations and finding in the fresh Assessment Order resulting in huge demand. The petitioner contacted the Advocate for filing appeal against the fresh Assessment Order and for obtaining stay against recovery. It is only at the time of discussion with the Advocate, the Advocate enquired as to whether the appeal is filed against the order u/s 263. The petitioner came to know that the order u/s 263 by itself is appealable. The petitioner also came to understand that the adverse finding in the order u/s 263 is independently appealable to this Hon'ble Tribunal. The petitioner is advised to se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iry of the relevant period of limitation, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. The learned Senior Counsel highlighted the thrust on the intention of the law reflected in section 255(5) of the Act. He stated that the law is similarly concerned sufficient cause in matters relating to belated appeal. According to him, the length of the delay is not relevant and submitted that there is a sufficient cause for delay and this delay is of no fetter in condoning the delay and admitting the same in view of the ignorance of the assessee to file the appeal in time. 5. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that here was a delay of 288 days, which was occurred only on the reason that the assessee was not aware nor it was informed that order u/s 263 of the Act is an appealable order before this Tribunal. According to the learned DR, it is nothing but ignorance of assessee to take remedial measure against the order passed by the CIT u/s 263 of the Act and that ignorance of assessee cannot be constituted as sufficient cause to condone this long delay of 288 days and it should n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the A.O. against the order passed by the CIT u/s 263 of the Act. The assessee herein wants to take the benefit of its wrong doing which is evident from the above narrated facts in detail. The assessee has not explained proper reason for such a delay of 288 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and it cannot be said that the assessee was diligent in filing appeal before the Tribunal. It is the primary duty of the assessee to establish sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time. The reason advanced by the assessee is very vague and cannot be said that the assessee is actually interested in pursuing the issue before this Tribunal. Thus, in the present case, there is no sufficient cause for presenting the appeal belatedly before the Tribunal. Accordingly, we decline to condone the delay of 288 days. 7. Further in the case of M/s.Fathima Educational Charitabe Trust v. Asst.Director of Income-tax in ITA No.84/Coch/2016 (order dated 25.07.2016), the assessee came in appeal before this Tribunal, wherein there was a delay of 1964 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum, dated 30.09.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est litigant and the Court cannot help a dormant person who slept over the order of the Commissioner who denied registration under section 12A(a) to the Kerala Cricket Association. If they are vigilant enough that the denial of the registration benefit has so much injurious effect on their interest, then they should have approached the Tribunal within the reasonable time. The flimsy grounds stated in the petition are not sufficient reasons so as to condone the delay. As rightly contended by the learned Departmental Representative, without sufficient cause or sufficient reasons, delay cannot be condoned. There must be a reason convincing to the Tribunal to condone the delay. The Courts have already held that the delay has to be explained properly and there should be sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from filing the appeal. The reasonable and sufficient cause are absent, except flimsy grounds urged in the petition for condonation of delay which is not sufficient for condonation of delay. Under the above circumstances, we are unable to accept the prayer of the ld. Chartered Accountant for the assessee for condonation of delay of 445 in filing the appeal before the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se for condonation of such an inordinate delay of 1964 days and accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is not admitted and the same is rejected. Also, we do not think it fit to decide the issue on merit. Thus the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I.T.A. No.84/Coch/2016 is dismissed. 8. This view of the Tribunal was confirmed by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in Writ Petition (C) No.31709 of 2016, dated 12th January, 2017, by observing as under:- The petitioner is aggrieved with the order at Ext.P7 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Cochin. The short facts to be noticed are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 claiming registration as a charitable institution. The same was once dismissed by Ext.P1 dated 03.03.2009. A subsequent application was made which was also rejected as per Ext.P4 dated 30.09.2010. A 3 rd application is also said to have been made, which is said to be pending. 2. While so, the petitioner approached the Tribunal with a delay of 1964 days. The Tribunal by a detail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
