9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 27.10.2016 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 330/Chd/2016, for the assessment year 2011-12, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in not allowing the appeal filed by the Appellant, especially when in identical cases, the same relief has been granted? ii) Whether the learned Tribunal erred in not considering the settled law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Dass (supra)? iii) Whether interest received received on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is in the nature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present appeals. Since, the appeals were barred by limitation, the applications have been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short "the 1963 Act") for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. The primary question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 733 in ITA Nos. 133 and 134 of 2019 and 739 days in ITA-135. 6. Examining the legal position relating to condonation of delay under Section 5 of the 1963 Act, it may be observed that the Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, (2010) 5 SCC 459 laying down the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hwari 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 "sufficient cause" is purely an individualistic test. It is not an objective test. Therefore, no two cases can be treated alike. The statute of limitation has left the concept of "sufficient cause" delightfully undefined, thereby leaving to the Court a well-intentioned discretion to decide the individual cases whether circumstances exist establishing sufficient cause. There are no categories of sufficient cause. The categories of sufficient cause are never exhausted. Each case spells ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reas 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 test. The court is required to examine while adjudicating the matter relating to condonation of delay on exercising judicial discretion on individual facts involved therein. There does not exist any exhaustive list constituting sufficient cause. The applicant/appellant is required to establish that inspite of acting with due care and caution, the delay had occurred due to circumstances beyond his control and was inevitable. 10. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is engaged in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
