9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments annexed with the appeal as to what was the reasonable cause nor any application for condonation of delay of 902 days in filing the appeal has been submitted ever since appeal was filed on 10.3.2011. None appeared before us on behalf of the assessee even when date of hearing was specifically informed to the ld. AR on behalf of the assessee when he appeared on 22.11.2012. As is evident from the aforesaid facts, quantum appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 902 days while no request has been made by the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In these circumstances, there being no sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal, the appeal cannot be admitted. Regarding 'sufficient cause', in the case of Gopal Films v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 655 it was held by the Hon'ble Court that 'Whenever a party wants delay to be condoned, he should show sufficient cause. If no cause is shown at all, the only conclusion that can be reached is that the delay cannot be condoned, particularly when lack of bona fides is evident.' 2.1 It is well established that the onus is always on the assessee to prove the existence of sufficient cause and there is no presumption that the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the miscellaneous first appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs." 2.4 The ITAT, in the case of Sri Venkatesa Paper & Boards Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2006] 98 ITD 200 (Chennai), held that in granting indulgence and condonation of delay, appellate authority must be satisfied that there had been diligence on the part of the appellant. In the instant case, there is no material before us, establishing diligence on the part of the assessee, even when specific opportunity was allowed to the assessee. 2.5 In the case of Vinay Extraction (P) Ltd. v. Vijay Khanna [2004] 271 ITR 450, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that "It is true that the apex court has held that the court should adopt a liberal approach in considering the application for condonation of delay and that substantial justice deserves to be preferred over technical considerations. However, it is equally well settled that a person invoking the discretion of the appellate or revisional authority beyond the prescribed period of limitation is required to show sufficient cause which would includ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over his head indefinitely for a period to be determined at the whims and fancies of the opponent?" In that decision, this Court has held that the delay of 285 days in preferring the appeal could not be condoned. It was held that the condonation of delay was not justified on facts and evidence of the case. As rightly pointed out that the Rules of limitation are based on principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. Though there is no presumption that the delay is occasioned deliberately or on account of culpable negligence, if the admitted facts in that case are taken note of, there is no doubt that the delay on the part of the appellant is deliberate and the appellant is clearly guilty of culpable negligence. Such negligent attitude of the appellant was not taken care to preserve the right of appeal and having been slept over for more than 558 days and not explained the delay without any reasonable doubt, the appellant cannot avail sympathy or discretion of this Court." 2.8 In view of the aforesaid observations, Hon'ble High Court concluded that the discretion having been rightly refused by the Tribunal, there was no sufficient reason or cause to interfere with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal itself. 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. In the case of Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that 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. The rule of limitation also contains a rule of justice, especially where a person chooses not to take up requisite legal remedies for an inordinate length of time and without reasonable cause, the Tribunal should apply the rule of limitation. Seekers of justice must come with clean hands. In the instant case, we do not find any reasonable cause for condoning the delay. 4. In the light of aforesaid decisions, the burden is on the party claiming condonation of delay to place before the court, in clear and explicit terms, all facts on which the party relies, so th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
