2008 (12) TMI 438 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Justification for the delay provided by the assessee.
3. Legal precedents and principles regarding condonation of delay.

Summary:

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals
The appeals were filed late by 7 years and 6 months. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the delay, which was opposed by the Departmental Representative, arguing that delay can only be condoned if it is properly explained and justifiable.

Issue 2: Justification for the Delay Provided by the Assessee
The assessee claimed that the delay was due to various reasons, including:
- The CIT(A)'s order was passed on 26-3-1999 and received within the year 1999.
- Differences between partners and financial crises led to disarray in the firm's affairs.
- The firm was involved in multiple litigations, and the factory was auctioned in 2004.
- The tax consultant expired in 2002, and the assessee faced health issues and financial crises, preventing him from engaging a new consultant.
- In October 2006, with the help of Dr. Ruparel, the assessee gathered necessary papers and filed the appeal on 5-1-2002.

Issue 3: Legal Precedents and Principles Regarding Condonation of Delay
The Tribunal reviewed various judgments:
- Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471: Sufficient cause for condonation should be interpreted to do even-handed justice.
- Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798: Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach and interpret "sufficient cause" liberally.
- Raju Ramchandra Bhangde v. CIT [1984] 148 ITR 391: Not every mistake of counsel affords sufficient cause for condonation.
- Surinder Kumar Boveja v. CWT [2006] 287 ITR 52: Ignorance of law or neglect is not sufficient ground for condonation.
- CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra [2002] 257 ITR 773: Delay can be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons, supported by proper evidence.
- J&K Small Scale Inds. Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2008] 115 ITD 11: Provisions relating to the specified period of limitation must be applied with their rigour and effective consequences.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was aware of the legal proceedings and had pursued the matter before the Assessing Officer. Despite claiming health issues and financial crises, no evidence was provided to support these claims. The Tribunal found that the delay of 7 years and 6 months was not justified and sufficient cause was not shown. Therefore, the request for condonation of delay was rejected, and the appeals were dismissed as barred by limitation.

Result:
All the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.