Law assists those who are Vigilant, Delay can’t be condoned on Sympathy Grounds: ITAT upholds Dismissal of Appeal filed after 700 Days [Read Order]

In a significant ruling, the ITAT Bangalore bench has upheld the order of the appellate authority wherein the appeal filed by the assessee was rejected on ground of 700 days. Concurring with the first appellate authority, the Tribunal held that the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights and the seekers of justice must come with clean hands.

There is a delay of more than 700 days in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). The assessee explained that the reason was 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).

The Tribunal bench comprising Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM found 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 Tribunal said.

Overruling the arguments of the assessee, the Tribunal held that “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,” the Tribunal concluded.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

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