9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e could not tell a specific date when it was received. The appeal was filed on 9-1-2007 and as such the delay in filing of the appeal was of approximately 7 years 6 months. The CIT(A) vide its order dated 26-3-1999 set aside many issues and matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for its adjudication. According to assessee, he has effectively pursued the matter before the Assessing Officer as per the advice of its tax consultant. During the course of pendency of the reassessment proceedings differences between the partners arose and the entire affairs of the assessee firm went in disarray and order came to be passed under section 144 of the Act. It was further stated that after the discontinuance of its business activity in the year 1996, the firm has been involved in many litigations and disputes amongst the partners as well as with the Banks, other financial institutions and some Governmental authorities. The recovery suits were also filed by the Banks and pursuant to the order of the DRT, factory of the assessee was auctioned in the year 2004. On account of this adverse circumstances, the return for the assessment year 1998-99 was also not filed. Since assessee was unable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Departmental Representative further contended that it has been repeatedly held by the various High Courts and Apex Court that by condoning delay, a wrong message should not have given which encourage the litigants not to adhere the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal. 5. Having heard the rival submissions and from careful perusal order of the CIT(A) and affidavit filed by the assessee we find that Order of the CIT(A) was served within the year 1999. A specific date of service was not mentioned by the assessee though order was passed on 26-3-1999. But, in any case, the service of the order of the CIT(A) is not disputed. In its para 4 of the affidavit, it was stated that assessee s business was under financial crisis and virtually it standstill since 1996. Meaning thereby, there was no changed circumstances of the assessee when the CIT(A) has passed an order in 1999. Since, CIT(A) has set aside various issues and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, the assessee started pursuing its case before the CIT(A) through its tax consultant. Meaning thereby, assessee was aware or having knowledge about the legal proceedings or the legal steps ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach and the expression "sufficient cause", should receive liberal construction. If delay of few days in filing of the appeal it should be condoned. 8. In the case of Raju Ramchandra Bhangde v. CIT [1984] 148 ITR 391 2 (Bom.). Their Lordships of the jurisdictional High Court have held that it is not as if that every mistake of counsel affords sufficient cause for condonation of delay. All depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Having regard to the entire background of the case and the fact that the counsel happened to be the natural father of the assessee, it is difficult to hold that any error of law, has been committed by the Tribunal in refusing to condone the delay. 9. In the case of Surinder Kumar Boveja v. CWT [2006] 287 ITR 52 3 (Delhi) their Lordships have held that in order to get condonation of delay in filing of an appeal, a party has to show sufficient cause. Want of due care, ignorance of law or neglect or failure to seek legal advise, is not sufficient ground for condonation of delay. The assessee having preferred an appeal against the order of the CWT(A) after an inordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erson who has found to be diligent and not in favour of one who is guilty of latches or negligence as held in the case of Raju Ramchandra Bhangde ( supra ). The Tribunal is not bound to show indulgence to an appellant who is not prompt in seeking his remedy, but, where the appellant is not guilty of wilful latches and negligence but is found to have been unable to file his appeal before the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation, indulgence has to be shown by the Tribunal as it may think fit in the facts and circumstances of a particular case to advance substantial justice in favour of hearing and not to shut out hearing as held in National Projects Construction Corpn. Ltd. v. CWT [1969] 74 ITR 465 (Delhi). Therefore, in order that one may claim to get the delay condoned, one must show by one s conduct that one was diligent all along in taking appropriate steps and the delay was caused notwithstanding one s due diligence. If, however, it appears that applicant is not diligent, but, is guilty of latches and negligence and does not take appropriate steps for pursuing his remedy till about the close of the period prescribed for, an action to be taken, he cannot claim to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retion for condoning the delay, one should not forget that the liberal approach adopted by the Tribunal, should not give a wrong message, so that, the litigations would take it otherwise and would not take care and due diligence in filing an appeal within the period of limitation. Had it been a case of a delay of few days, one can accept the explanation of the assessee that assessee could not devote his time as he was busy in some other affairs, but, it cannot be accepted or appreciated that during the period of 7 years and 6 months, assessee could not take a decision for filing an appeal before the Tribunal though he was aware of the fact that CIT(A) has passed an order on certain issues against him. We, therefore, of the view that this present case is not a fit case where the delay 7 years 6 months can be condoned as sufficient cause is not brought on record by the assessee. We, therefore, reject the request for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Since the delay in filing of the appeal is not condoned, we dismiss the appeals being not admitted as barred by limitation. 14. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
