9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. As assessee has failed to come forth with any good and sufficient reason that would justify condonation of the substantial delay involved in preferring of the captioned appeals. Therefore, the condonation of delay which was without any reasonable cause was declined. Thus dismissing all the captioned appeals of the assessee as barred by limitation. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -07 545 4. The reason for delay explained by the Ld.AR of the assessee stating that the delay was on account of ill advice by the earlier counsel of the assessee, therefore the delay may be condoned. In support of this contention Ld AR has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co Ltd v. Nirmala Devi & Ors. reported in 1979 AIR 1666, 1979 SCR (3) 694, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: HELD: A company relies on its Legal Adviser and the Manager's expertise is in company management and not in law. There is no particular reason why when a company or other person retains a lawyer to advise it or him on legal affairs reliance should not be placed on such counsel. Of course, if there is gross delay too patent even for layman or if there is in comprehensible indifference the shield of legal opinion may still be vulnerable. If legal Adviser's opinions are to be subjected by company managers to further legal scrutiny of their own, an impossible situation may arise. With such submissions, the Ld.AR of the assessee requested that since, the delay was on account of mistake on the part of earlier Counsels, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s inactive is not entitled for condonation of delay". The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Ramlingam vs R.B.Bhvaneswari I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), has described the test for determining whether the petition has acted with due diligence or not. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special leave petition stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition". It is further observed that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the assessees has to set out the case showing sufficient reason which prevented them to file before the Court/Commission within the prescribed period of limitation. 7. In the present matter, the assessee's main contention behind the delay was that he was ill-advised by the Counsels and by the time, he engaged new Counsel and got the correct advice to file the appeal, the time of limitation was already surpassed. This contention of the assessee cannot be acceded to for the reason that the assessees were unab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... failed to participate in the assessment proceedings for A.Y.2007-08 and A.Y.2008-09, due to which the A.O was constrained to frame the respective assessments vide his orders passed u/ss.144/147 of the Act. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances under consideration, I am of the considered view that as there is an inordinate delay in filing of the captioned appeals, for which the assessee had failed to come forth with any justifiable reason, therefore, as stated by the Ld. DR and, rightly so, the same does not merit to be condoned. The assessee has not given any genuine reason for the delay in filing of the captioned appeals either in his application seeking condonation of delay and the affidavits filed before me or in the course of hearing of the appeals. All that the assessee had tried to canvass before me was that the delay in filing of the present appeal was attributable to his Chartered Accountant, viz. Shri Shailesh Agrawal who had failed to properly guide him as regards filing of the appeals before the Tribunal. I find no substance in the claim of the assessee that the delay involved in filing of the present appeals was due to bonafide reasons, and the same d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. 6. I may herein observe that in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Administrator, Howrah 1972 AIR SC 749, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, particularly when there is no motive behind the delay. The expression "sufficient cause" will always have relevancy to reasonableness. The action which can be condoned by the court should fall within the realm of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. However, as observed by me hereinabove, as the assessee appellant in the present case is habitually acting in defiance of law, therefore, there can be no reason to allow his application and condone the substantial delay of 1563 days involved in preferring of the captioned appeals. 7. Also, I may herein draw support from a Third Member decision of a co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Jt. CIT Vs. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd. (2007) 104 ITD 149 (Chennai), wherein a fine distinction was drawn between normal delay and inordinate delay. It was held as under: "A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
