9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order was not forwarded by the Operating Office to the Taxation Department at New Delhi - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 4537/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 4-12-2013 - Shri D. Manmohan And Shri Rajendra,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Ved Jain For the Respondent : Shri Ravi Prakash ORDER Per D. Manmohan, V.P. This appeal by the assessee company is directed against the order by the Revisionary Authority. The impugned order under section 263 was passed on 18th March, 2009 and the same was communicated to the assessee on 26th March, 2009 whereas the appeal papers were signed by the Director of the assessee company on 1st June, 2011 and was ultimately filed in the Registry on 6th June, 2011 resulting in a delay of 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ability of claim under section 80IA afresh. The learned counsel for the assessee adverted our attention to the relevant paragraph from the order of the Tribunal (ITA No. 5959/Mum/2008 dated 18th September, 2013) wherein the bench observed that though the assessee has not made out any case of good and sufficient reasons for the said delay on account of the fact that service of the impugned order from the local office to the Taxation Department, etc. is only on account of lack of proper coordination which is purely an internal matter which has been occurring time and again but still they assumed that the assessee's case deserves to be considered on merits, probably assuming that cause of substantial justice is more important than the technica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that address. The learned D.R., therefore, submitted that the delay in the instant case is substantial, i.e. 742 days and hence it does not deserve to be condoned. In fact, in the instant case even from the date of verification there is a delay of five days which in itself shows that they have not given any importance to take timely action. He, therefore, distinguished the order passed by the ITAT in respect of the earlier assessment year. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. There are catena of decisions on the issue as to what constitutes sufficient cause and the latest decision is in the case of Basawaraj Anr vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (Civil Appeal No. 6974 6975 of 2013 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay." It can thus be seen that if a party has not acted diligently or remained inactive that cannot be treated as sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Moreover, in the instant case the assessee has been actually pursuing the matter on the same issue for earlier years and probably for the subsequent years before one authority or the other in the relevant period and it is not known as to why they were not able to find as to what was the outcome of 263 proceedings for the year under consideration. Under these circumstances we hold that this is not a fit case for co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
