9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in those years. Order on the petitions for condonation of delay in filing these appeals before the ITAT, Bangalore for A.Ys 2002-03 to 2005-06. 2. At the outset of the proceedings before us, it was observed that there was a delay of 515 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case, briefly, are as under :- 3.1 The impugned orders of the learned CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271A of the Act for A.Ys 2002-03 to 2005-06 was passed vide a combined order dt.21.3.2012. Admittedly, the order was received by the assessee on 9.5.2012 and therefore these appeals for A.Ys 2002-03 to 2005-06 ought to have been filed before this Tribunal on or before 8.7.2012. These appeals were however filed on 4.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e a lenient view in the matter, condone the delay and dispose off the matter based on the merits of the case and not dismiss the matter on the basis of technicalities. In support of this proposition, the assessee, inter alia, placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements :- (i) Collector, Land Acquisition V MST Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). (ii) Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. V Smt. Nirmala Devi & Others, 118 ITR 507 (SC). (iii) CIT V West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corpn. Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 269 (SC). (iv) Raghavendra Constructions V ITO in ITA 425/Bang/2012. (v) Shakuntala Hegde L/R of R.K. Hegde V ACIT in ITA No.2785/Bang/2004. (vi) CIT V ISRO Satellite Centre in ITA No.532/2008 (Kar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n record, including the judicial decisions cited. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil V Shantaram Baburao Patil & Ors (2002) 253 ITR 798 has held that while exercising discretion, distinction should be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days, which may deserve a liberal approach. The exercise of discretion, their Lordships observed, would depend on the facts of each case and no hard or fast rule can be laid down in this regard. In the above cited case, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was 7 days. In the case of Ganga Sahai Ram Swarup V ITAT (2004) 271 ITR 512 (All) the delay was of 12 days in filing the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in condoning the delay, it must be established beyond the shadow of doubt that the assessee was diligent and was not guilty of negligence on his part. Sufficient cause as contemplated in the limitation provisions must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party. In the case on hand, the factual matrix, in our view, clearly establishes that the delay was due to the negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee, which could have been avoided by the assessee if he had exercised due care and attention. Therefore in our opinion, in the factual matrix of this case there exists no sufficient and reasonable cause for the inordinate delay of 515 days in filing the appeals for Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2005-06 by the assessee. In c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
