M/s Auto Ignition Ltd, Faridabad V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 903/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0842 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-10-2009
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRATIMA KAUSHIK
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL MALHOTRA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 80HHC

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P.BANSAL, JM AND SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM ITA NO.903/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000 M/S AUTO IGNITION LIMITED, PLOT NO.1, 19/6, MATHURA ROAD, FARIDABAD 121 006. PAN NO.AAACA5390E. VS. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANIL MALHOTRA, CA. RESPONDENT BY : MS.PRATIMA KAUSHIK, SR.DR. ORDER PER R.C.SHARMA, AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 23.1.2007 FOR AY 1999-2000. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED DISALLO WANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC IN RESPECT OF DUTY ENTITLEMENT PASS BOOK (DEPB) AS PER AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80HHC EFFECTIVE F ROM 1.4.1998. WE FOUND THAT THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BELATEDLY BY 590 D AYS. THE REGISTRY HAS ALREADY POINTED OUT THE DEFECT IN THE FORM OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 12.3.2009. IT APPEA RS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARED TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR SUCH ABNORMAL DELA Y IN FILING APPEAL. ON THE SPECIFIC QUERY OF THE BENCH, IT WAS FOUND THAT EVEN THOUGH ASSESSEE WAS AWARE OF THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, BUT HE COU LD NOT ADVANCE ANY COGENT REASON FOR SUCH ABNORMAL DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL . ITA-903/D/2009 2 3. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE WELL SETTLED PROPOSIT ION THAT IN THE CASE OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE BEING SHOWN, EVEN THE ABNORMAL DEL AY IS BEING CONDONED BY THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE. IT APPEARS FROM THE ASSESSEES OWN PETITION FOR CONDON ATION OF DELAY THAT ORDER FROM THE CIT(A) DATED 1.5.2007 WAS RECEIVED ON 1.6. 2007, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED ANY REASON MUCH LESS A COGENT REA SON FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AFTER MORE THAN ONE AND A HALF YEAR. IN CASE OF DELAY, HEAVY BURDEN LIES UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW SPECIAL CIRCU MSTANCES CONSTITUTING SUFFICIENT CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 590 DAYS, IF NOT EACH DAYS DELAY. IN THE CONDONATION PETITION SO FILED, THERE IS HARDLY ANY EXPLANATION MUCH LESS REASONS SHOWING SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN SUPPORT OF ABNO RMAL DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. NOT EVEN AN IOTA OF EXPLANATION WAS FURNIS HED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHEN ADMITTEDLY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WAS RECEIVED BY IT L ONG BACK ON 1.6.2007. EVEN THOUGH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS DATED 1.5.2007 BUT ITS RECEIPT HAD BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 1.6.2007, THEREFORE AT LEAST FROM 1.6.2007, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO EXPLAIN COGENT REASONS FOR SUCH ABN ORMAL DELAY OF 590 DAYS. VAGUE AVERMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE WITHOUT ANY SATISFAC TORY EXPLANATION. FROM THE PETITION, IT WAS CLEAR THAT EVEN THE APPEA LS FOR SUBSEQUENT AY 2000-01, 2002-03 AND 2003-04 WERE ALREADY DISPOSED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 12.1.2009, BUT NOTHING WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY HE KEPT ON SLEEPING OVER THE APPELLATE ORDER OF CIT (A) FOR AY 1999-2000, DATED 1.5.2007. ANY DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL DES ERVES TO BE CONDONED IF THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE SAME AND IF ASS ESSEE FAILS TO INDICATE THE REASONABLE CAUSE MUCH LESS A COGENT CAUSE, THERE IS NO REASON TO CONDONE SUCH DELAY, SPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS ABNORMAL DELAY OF 590 DAYS. ITA-903/D/2009 3 4. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE ABNO RMAL DELAY OF 590 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON FOR CONDONING SUCH ABNORMAL DELAY. THUS, ON THE PLEA OF APPEAL HAVING BEEN FIL ED WITH ABNORMAL DELAY, WITHOUT SHOWING ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE SAME, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN-LIMINE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH OCTOBER, 2009. SD/- SD/- (I.P.BANSAL) (R.C.SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 07.10.2009. VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT DEPUTY REGISTRAR