9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove appeal as against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench dated 25.04.2008 in ITA No.120/Mds/2007 for the Block Assessment year 1.4.1988 to 15.12.1988. 2. The assessee is a partner in a firm and also a shareholder of M/s. Tamil Nadu Dadha Pharmaceuticals Limited. Pursuant to a search and seizure action conducted in the case of Sun Pharma Group of Industries at Mumbai and Baroda on 17.12.1988 consequential search was carried out in the business and residential premises of the Dadhas at Chennai as well as at Bangalore. Pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation approved by Gujarat and Madras High Court M/s Tamil Nadu Dadha Pharmaceuticals Limited was converted into M/s. Sun Pharma India Limited shares in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellate Tribunal considered the matter in respect of the appeal filed by the assessee, after giving opportunity, the Appellate Tribunal after elaborately discussing the affidavit filed by the assessee and taking into consideration all aspects, ultimately rejected the appeal as the appellant has not been given any sufficient reasons or cause for the delay in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's appeal. Aggrieved against the same, the above appeal has been filed. 5. The questions of law raised in the appeal are as follows:- (1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in not condoning the delay of the appellant in filing the appeal before the Tribunal by not appreciating t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... doned merely on equitable ground as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. RAMACHANDRAN v. STATE OF KERALA cited supra. It is clear that the assessee has to establish sufficient cause for not filing its appeal in time. In the present case, the appeal has been filed after a delay of 558 days. From the contents of the affidavit and submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee, it is clear that the assessee has not explained the delay for such a long period and just took the ground of death of her counsel in January 2007, that too after the expiry of about one year from the last date of filing the appeal. Even the assessee failed to explain the sufficient cause or reason by giving necessary details as to how the delay from January 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d first time the assessee appeared on 3.3.2008 when the appeal was heard. We therefore decline to condone the delay of 558 days in filing the present appeal. Accordingly, the prayer for condonation of delay is rejected." 8. From a reading of the above, it is clear that the appellant has not explained the cause of delay in filing the appeal, especially when authorised representative viz., representative who was given charge to file the appeal had died exactly one year after the last date of filing of the appeal. When that be so, it is pertinent to point out that actually the filing of the appeal was not done and even after the death of Ashok Kumbat, the assessee had taken more than six months in filing the present appeal. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d circumstances of the case, the delay was accepted by the Tribunal and it was also accepted by the Honourable Supreme Court since the delay was duly explained. But here the case is different. The appellant has not chosen to give any reason, much less sufficient reason for accepting the delay caused by the appellant. In fact, no details have been given for the delay. Hence, this ruling will not help the contention of the appellant. 11. Next ruling relied upon by the appellant is the decision reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) in the case of COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION v. MST. KATIJI AND ORS., wherein the Honourable Supreme Court had explained the fact for sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In this case, considering the fact t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l for the appellant will not applicable to the facts of the present case. 14. At this juncture, we have to be guided by the judgment reported in [1990] 1 LLN 457 in the case of T.N.M. BANK LTD. v. APP. AUTY., SHOPS ACT. In that particular case, the Division Bench of this court has held that, ".................. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. Rules of limitation are based on principles of sound policy and principles of equity. Is a litigant liable to have a Damocles' sword hanging over his head indefinitely for a period to be determined at the whims and fancies of the opponent?" In that decision, this Court has held that the delay of 285 days in preferring the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
