9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] we direct the assessee to pay costs of 10,000/- to the revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y on the basis of legal advice, the assessee filed a petition u/s 154. Again he got a legal advice that the appeal is to be preferred and, therefore, he filed the appeal. 7. In our opinion, the assessee cannot be treated as a litigant who was not interested in pursuing the legal remedy against the assessment order. It was only on account of wrong legal advice that the assessee did not pursue the appeal. Filing of petition u/s 154 and thereafter appeal before Ld. CIT(A) clearly vindicates the assessee's claim that he was acting on legal advice. The assessee was a bank employee and not a legal expert to know the niceties of his legal rights. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Kattiji & Othrs. (supra) has held as under :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons which are discussed hereunder : • Madhu Dadha vs. Asstt. CIT, Chennai. In this case there was a delay of 558 days in filing the appeal. Tribunal rejected the appeal holding that assessee was not given sufficient reasons for delay. In para 8 & 9 the Hon'ble Madras high Court has observed as under :- 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 authorized 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 Asho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... um appeal filed by the assessee when he appeared on 22.11.2012. As is evident from the aforesaid facts, quantum appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 902 days while no request has been made by the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In these circumstances, there being no sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal, the appeal cannot be admitted. Regarding 'sufficient cause', in the case of Gopal Films vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 655 / 105 Taxman 364 (kar.) it was held by the Hon'ble Court that "Whenever a party wants delay to be condoned, he should show sufficient cause. If no cause is shown at all, the only conclusion that can be reached is that the delay cannot be condoned, particularly when lack o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions has to be made in order to advance substantial justice. Seekers of justice must come with clean hands. In the present case, the reasons advanced by the assessee do not show any good and sufficient reason to condone the delays. The delays are not properly explained by the assessee. There is no reason for condoning such delays for the assessment years under consideration. The delay is nothing but negligence and inaction of the assesseee which could have been very well avoided by the exercise of due care and attention. There exists no sufficient or good reason for condoning inordinate delays of more than 1500 days for the years under consideration (para 6)". This decision also is of no assistance to revenue because here also t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring or nexus with the issue at hand. The Tribunal, therefore, has erred in law and on facts in refusing to condone the delay. The explanation placed on affidavit was not contested nor we find that from such explanation can we arrive at the conclusion that the assessee was at fault, he intentionally and deliberately delayed the matter and has no bona fide or reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the proceedings. The position is quite otherwise. 22. In the light of the above discussion, we allow both the appeals. We condone the delay of 2984 days in filing the appeals but on the condition of payment of costs, quantified totally at ₹ 50,000/. Meaning thereby, ₹ 25,000/ plus ₹ 25,000/ in both appeals. The costs to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
