9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... availing the remedy within the prescribed 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. No ground to condone the colossal delay of 482 days in filing the appeal. The question regarding whether there is sufficient cause or not depends upon each case and primarily is a question of fact to be considered taking into totality of events which had taken place in a particular case. In the present case after appreciating the matter it cannot be said that there was sufficient cause fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w being perverse in holding that provisions was not an ascertained liability but a contingent liability and, hence, not allowable under the law? b) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in confirming addition of ₹ 80,18,000/- being provision for service charge on gunny bags without appreciating the evidences adduced in proper and correct spirit, thus, the order is bad in law and deserves to be set aside? c) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in confirming addition of ₹ 39,21,960/- being provision created for financial assistance without appreciating the evidences and Notification of Haryana Government and without granting sufficient opportunity and on the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re A-2), dismissed the appeal except modification to the extent that disallowance was not covered under Section 43B of the Act. Still dissatisfied, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 24.6.2016 (Annexure A-3), affirmed the findings of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal which gave rise to the present appeal. Since, the appeal was barred by limitation, an application bearing CM- 16476-CII-2018 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the 1963 Act ) for condonation of 482 days' delay in filing the appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. The primary question that arises for consideration in this appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate- Collector (L.A.) v. Katiji N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil. 7. It was further noticed by the Apex Court in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 892 as under:- ..... It is not necessary at this stage to discuss each and every judgment cited before us for the simple reason that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not lay down any standard or objective test. The test of sufficien ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the prescribed 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. 9. The 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting the matter it cannot be said that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay. However, the appeal was required to be filed within the stipulated period of limitation of 120 days. But the appellant filed the appeal before the Tribunal on 19.2.2018, after a delay of 482 days. The plea of the appellant as mentioned above would not satisfy the test of sufficient cause. The explanation of the appellant is bereft of justification for the delay caused in filing the appeal keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. In view of the above, finding no merit in the application bearing CM-16476-CIIO-2018 for condonation of 482 days' delay in filing the appeal, the same is hereby di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
