9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is in the said circumstance that, the merit of the so-called explanation to condone the delay was considered, leading to an adverse finding. Absolutely no tenable reason or explanation has been offered by the Appellant/Assessee for condoning the inordinate delay of '1924 days'; much less any satisfactory explanation. The finding was rendered by the Tribunal that the inordinate delay cannot be condoned, led to dismissal of the MA for restoration of the appeal. It is quite relevant to note that the merit of the case was not considered by the Tribunal, as the MA for restoration of the appeal came to be dismissed for want of any satisfactory explanation of delay. The finding rendered by the Tribunal is well supported by the reasons; which is more evident from the course and conduct pursued by the Assessee by approbating and reprobating simultaneously; initially by contending before the Tribunal (when MA preferred by the Revenue was allowed years ago in 2011) that the Apex Court ruling in Electronics Corporation of India Limited [ 2011 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT ] was not applicable to their case and now seeking to place reliance on the same. - Tax Case No.16 of 2020 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur, vide Annexure A/3, which came to be partly allowed as per Annexure A/4. Met with the situation, the Assessee preferred Annexure A/5 appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, to the extent the Assessee was aggrieved. A similar appeal was filed from the part of the Revenue as well, insofar as the issue was decided against them. 4. When the matters were considered by the Tribunal, it was found that the appeals were filed without obtaining the approval of the High Power Committee in terms of the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Another v. Collector of Central Excise reported in (1992) 104 CTR Reports 31. Accordingly, both the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable as per Annexure A/6 order dated 03.06.2010; however, leaving it open to the parties to file applications for revival of the appeals after obtaining clearance. 5. It is pointed out that the Apex Court had subsequently made it clear in Electronics Corporation of India Limited v. Union of India and Others reported in (2011) 238 CTR Reports 353 that the provisions relating to C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed after hearing both the sides vide Annexure A/7 dated 21.10.2011. Instead of taking any similar step by the Assessee to get their appeal restored, they were sleeping over the issue for near 7-8 years and it was thereafter, that the MA was filed in September 2019 with a petition to condone the inordinate delay of 1924 days; that too, without offering any satisfactory explanation. In the said circumstance, dismissal of the said MA as per Annexure A/1 order, holding that the delay was not condonable, is purely a question of fact and it does not involve any substantial question of law. 8. There is no dispute with regard to the sequence of events. As mentioned already, the challenge before this Court in not against the original order passed on 03.06.2010, vide Annexure A/6, dismissing the appeal preferred by the Assessee, but against the order dated 05.11.2019 (Annexure A/1) dismissing the MA for restoration because of the refusal to condone the inordinate delay of 1924 days. Does it involve any substantial question of law, is the point to be considered in this appeal. 9. The primary point to be noted is that the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Electronics Corporation of In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n was not applicable. At least, on allowing the MA filed by the Revenue as per Annexure A/7 order dated 21.10.2011, the Appellant/Assessee could have filed a similar MA to get their appeal as well to be restored, which course was not pursed by them. It was after waiting for nearly 7-8 years, that they had some second thought and have come up on some revelation, that similar MA could be filed with a petition to condone the inordinate delay of '1924 days' as discernible from Annexure A/1. It is in the said circumstance that, the merit of the so-called explanation to condone the delay was considered, leading to an adverse finding. 13. It will be worthwhile to examine the reasons stated for the inordinate delay as given in paragraphs-5 and 6 of the MA, which are reproduced below: 5. That the applicant could not file said Miscellaneous Application due to bona fide reasons of transfer/retirement of concerned officers-in-charge and change in its Tax Consultants resulting in loss of track of proceedings as there were more than 50 appeals pending before this Hon'ble Tribunal. 6. That the mistake is traced now while reconciling pendency of appeals and present applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neous Application has not been explained nor has explained the chronology of events pertaining to such inordinate delay by way of affidavit. In view of the aforesaid facts and after relying on the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the view that the inordinate delay cannot be condoned. We dismiss the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee. 15. Ongoing through the order passed by the Tribunal, we are quite convinced, that absolutely no tenable reason or explanation has been offered by the Appellant/Assessee for condoning the inordinate delay of '1924 days'; much less any satisfactory explanation. The finding was rendered by the Tribunal that the inordinate delay cannot be condoned, led to dismissal of the MA for restoration of the appeal. It is quite relevant to note that the merit of the case was not considered by the Tribunal, as the MA for restoration of the appeal came to be dismissed for want of any satisfactory explanation of delay. The finding rendered by the Tribunal is well supported by the reasons; which is more evident from the course and conduct pursued by the Assessee by approbating and reprobating simultaneously; initially by conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
