9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of these appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2. The facts of the case as narrated in assessment year 1995-96 is considered for the purpose of adjudication of these appeals as the matter is similar in all these appeals. The assessee is an individual. He filed his return of income for the assessment year 1995-96 admitting a taxable income of F87,000/- on 28.08.1997. A survey under Section 133A was conducted in the business premises of M/s J.V.P. Associates and other sister concerns on 11.07.2001. During the course of survey some documents evidencing individual business transactions of assessee were found. The assessment was therefore reopened u/s 147 of the Act. During the course of assessment, assessee has not produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rac12; years and he dismissed all these appeals as non-admitted. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The assessee also raised a ground with regard to the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer. In these appeals the ld. Authorised Representative filed an affidavit before us as follows:- I, C. Jegaveerapandian, S/o. Chellaiahnadar aged about 63 years residing No.21, Abirami Nagar, Muthiahpuram Thoothukudi-628005 hereby solemnly affirm and state as under 1. I am the appellant and I am competent to swear to the affidavit. I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. I am an individual doing Contract Business. A survey was conducted on 11/072001 u/s 133A on my business premises JVP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resentative, the assessee has not taken due care and attention for filing the appeals within the statutory time limit and the assessee shows utter disregard to the statutory provisions of the Act. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties. The issue before us is whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in refusing to condone the delay around 8 ½ years in filing these appeals against the order passed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee hereinabove explained the delay by way of affidavit filed before us and also before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to condone the delay of 8 ½ years. The assessee is required to show sufficient cause that the assessee was either bonafide or was prevented by sufficient cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether the facts narrated by the assessee in his petition for condonation of delay as true or not which he failed to examine the same. Thus, in our opinion he is required to examine the contents, details in petition whether it is true or not. In our opinion, rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy for the readdress the legal injury so suffered, the law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. The length of delay is not a material to condone the delay, the cause of delay is to be considered to condone the delay. In the case of Nand Kishore vs. State of Punjab (1955) 6 SCC 614, the Supreme Court had condoned the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
