9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the earlier part of the order does not satisfy the test of sufficient ground as contemplated under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. - ITA No. 337 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 25-9-2017 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. AMIT RAWAL, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mukhi, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Senior Standing Counsel Ajay Kumar Mittal . 1. The appellant-revenue has filed the instant appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ) against the order dated 12.04.2016, Annexure A.3, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (in short, the Tribunal ) in I.T.A. No.429/Chd/2013, for the assessment year 2005-06, claiming following substa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and explained that the imposition of penalty was not maintainable under the law. According to the assessee, on the issue of suppression of closing stock, total stock of ₹ 27,45,000/- was lying with her. Besides, she was having stock of other parties worth ₹ 28,73,640/-. The assessee had taken insurance on entire stock since the stock was in her custody, and the responsibility for safety laid with her. To take credit limits and loans from the Bank, the assessee declared the entire stock as her own. The Assessing Officer summoned record from the Bank and after perusing the same, made addition to the income of the assessee. On the second issue, regarding addition of ₹ 5,20,889/-, on account of unaccounted work done, it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... job work done. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated. Penalty of ₹ 11,13,430/- was imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 27.09.2010. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 06.06.2011, Annexure A.2. The appeal before the Tribunal was to be filed within a period of 60 days. The same was filed in April 2013. The explanation putforth by the assessee was that she submitted copy of the order to the learned counsel but the file remained pending with him and it was only in April 2013, when the counsel received the order passed by the Tribunal in quantum appeal that the error was noticed and the counsel realized the mistake about non filing of the penalty appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibed period. The meaning to be assigned to the expression sufficient cause occurring in Section 5 of the 1963 Act should be such so as to do substantial justice between the parties. The existence of sufficient cause depends upon facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be applied in deciding such cases. 7. The Hon ble Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. and R.B. Ramlingam s cases (supra) noticed that the courts should adopt liberal approach where delay is of short period whereas the proof required should be strict where the delay is inordinate. Further, it was also observed that judgments dealing with the condonation of delay may not lay down any standard or objective test but is purely an individualistic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
