9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce must come with clean hands. In the instant case, no reasonable cause is found for condoning the delay for a period of more than 902 days after the impugned order was served upon the delay. As the appeal is barred by limitation, it deserves to be rejected on this ground alone - against assessee. - IT APPEAL NOS. 1238 & 1239 (DELHI) OF 2011 - - - Dated:- 26-11-2012 - A.N. PAHUJA AND C.M. GARG, JJ. Smt. Sumana Sen for the Respondent. ORDER A.N. Pahuja, Accountant Member - These two appeals filed on 10.3.2011 by the assessee against two separate orders dated 4-07-2008 17.12.2010 of the ld. CIT(A)-Karnal, for the AY 2005-06 respectively, raise grounds relating to the disallowance of Rs. 1,40,889 on account of foreign travel expenses and levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'] in relation to the aforesaid disallowance of foreign travel expenses. 2. These appeals earlier disposed of vide order dated 2.6.2011, were recalled vide order dated 28.9.2012 in MA nos. 273 274/Del./2011. The quantum appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no.1238/Del./2011 is delayed by 902 days. Though the assessee mentioned in gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the period prescribed by the law of limitation. 2.3 In the case of CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra [2002] 257 ITR 773, it was observed by the Hon'ble Court as under: "The provisions relating to prescription of limitation in every statute must not be construed so liberally that it would have the effect of taking away the benefit accruing to the other party in a mechanical manner. Where the Legislature spells out a period of limitation and provides for power to condone the delay as well, there such delay can be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. Now it is a settled principle of law that the provisions relating to specified period of limitation must be applied with their rigour and effective consequences." 2.3.1 In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala AIR 1998 SC 2276. The relevant portion reads as under: "Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court, was, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot a case of want of diligence or inaction on the part of the applicant. In the instant case, the applicant has failed to place on record all these facts. Inaction or want of diligence on the part of the applicant would not entitle the applicant to the benefit of the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act. In our opinion, therefore, the applicant has failed to make out a case that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the application under section 27(3) of the Act. The application for condonation of delay is, accordingly, rejected. As the application under section 27(3) of the Act is barred by limitation, it deserves to be rejected on this ground alone." 2.7 In Madhu Dadha v. Asstt. CIT, Hon'ble Madras High Court in their decision dated 23.6.2009 while referring to the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.K. Ramachandran (supra) observed that "14. At this juncture, we have to be guided by the judgment reported in [1990] 1 LLN 457 in the case of T.N.M. Bank Ltd. v. App. Auty., Shops Act. In that particular case, the Division Bench of this court has held that, "... We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r filing the appeal within the limitation period or as early as possible therefore, the explanation for delay of 558 days appears to be too insufficient, unsatisfactory and unreasonable for condoning the inordinate delay. From the affidavit it reflects that averments are quite vague as no dates have been specified as to when the papers were handed for drafting an appeal and on what occasion the enquiries were made for preparation and filing of appeal. Moreover, when the assessee never went for signing the appeal, how it could have been filed as presumed by the assessee. Even the conduct of the assessee before this Tribunal is also not appreciable as various notice were sent to the assessee and first time the assessee appeared on 3.3.2008 when the appeal was heard. We therefore decline to condone the delay of 558 days in filing the present appeal. Accordingly, the prayer for condonation of delay is rejected." 3. In the instant case also the assessee seems to be quite negligent by not taking the necessary steps for filing the appeal within the time prescribed by the statute .The conduct of the assessee reveals that the assessee takes the condonation of delay provision as granted. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
