ITAT elucidates law on condonation of delay; arguments as to sufficient cause isn’t a license to file belated appeal

Liberal view in condoning delay is one of the guiding principles in the realm of belated appeals, which can't be equated with a license to file appeals at will-disregarding the time-limits fixed by the statutes

In the instant case the assessee moved an application before the FAA for condoning the delay in filing appeal. The FAA dismissed the appeal filed by assessee.

On appeal, the Tribunal explains basic principles of condonation of delay as under:

1) If sufficient causes for delay are presented, discretion is available to the FAAs to condone the delay and admit the appeal. The expression 'sufficient cause' is not defined, but it means a cause which is beyond the control of the assessee;

2) Any cause which prevents a person approaching the FAA within given time limit is considered as a sufficient cause. The test whether or not a cause is sufficient is to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention;

3) In every case of delay, there is some lapse on the part of the assessee. If there are no mala fides the FAA should consider the application of the assessee. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned otherwise than a bonafide conduct, then the FAA should lean against acceptance of the explanation;

4) The application for condonation of delay should be supported by an affidavit, showing that there is sufficient cause for condonation. Condonation of delay, though an equitable relief, yet, cannot be accorded merely on sympathy or compassion and the grounds offered have to be evaluated to test whether the party in default had been guilty of conscious and deliberate inaction.

Based on the above principles it held in favour of revenue as under:

A) Adopting a liberal view in condoning delay is one of the guiding principles in the realm of belated appeals, but liberal approach cannot be equated with a license to file appeals at will-disregarding the time-limits fixed by the Statutes;

B) For a period of more than three years, assessee did not bother to find out the outcome of the appeal it had filed. The behaviour of the assessee could be termed as personified inaction and negligence which would not constitute reasonable cause;

C) Assessee, a corporate-assessee, filing returns of income of lacs of Rupees and assisted by highly qualified professionals couldn't take umbrella of ignorance of the provisions of law. Therefore, the order of FAA was to be upheld - PRASHANT PROJECTS LTD. V. DY. CIT (2013) 37 taxmann.com 137 (Mumbai - Trib.)