Illness of MD of Company not sufficient cause for condoning delay of 1473 days: ITAT [Read Order]

Illness of Managing Director of company not sufficient cause for condoning delay of 1473 days so was held by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Allahabad.

The assessee, Kanodia Investments Private Limited filed an appeal before the CIT with delay of around 4 years, i.e., 1473 days, beyond the time prescribed under the provisions of Section 249(2)(b) of the 1961 Act, and the CIT(A) refused to condone the delay.

The assessee itself admitted before CIT(A) that the intimation u/s 143(1) dated 05.08.2016 was duly received by assessee on its e-portal. Thus, intimation dated 05.08.2016 u/s 143(1) was undisputedly and admittedly received in time by assessee company, by its Managing Director on its behalf who handed over the same to its regular counsel. Both the human agencies, namely MD and CA, failed to ensure that appeal is filed in time.

The assessee pleaded illness of the MD before CIT(A), but CIT(A) has observed in its appellate order that no documentary evidence to justify/substantiate such a huge delay has been filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal observed that “the onus or burden was very heavy on the assessee to explain huge delay of 4 years in filing appeal before CIT(A) beyond time prescribed u/s 249(2)(b) of the1961 Act, more so intimation u/s 143(1) dated 05.08.2016 was admittedly and undisputedly received by assessee in time. The CIT(A) is vested with discretionary powers to condone delay where the assessee is able to demonstrate sufficient cause. Reference is drawn to provisions of Section249(3) of the 1961 Act.”

The Bench consisting of Vijay Pal Rao, Judicial Member and Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member held that “In this case, in our considered view, the ld. CIT(A) judiciously exercised its powers in most fair, reasonable and transparent manner in not condoning the substantial delay of 1473 days in filing appeal beyond time prescribed under 1961 Act, and in such cases our scope of interference is very limited to see whether this powers were judiciously exercised in fair, reasonable and transparent manner , or not , and whether the assessee had a sufficient cause or not in not presenting the appeal in time, and despite sufficient cause shown by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) exercised its power in capricious, malicious or whimsical manner.”

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates