9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quire from his counsel about filing status of appeal against former order received on 20.01.2016? Had the assessee exercised any care at that stage itself, he would have not only rushed to file appeal against impugned order dated 20.01.2016 with a smaller delay but also could ensure timely filing of appeal against order dated 13.02.2017. However, the assessee did not exercise any such care even at stage and only continued with its negligent or lethargic attitude. Therefore, the assessee is also a contributor in causing delay in filing. DR is very much correct in submitting that the assessee does not deserve any sympathy in present cases. Needless to mention that there is a whopping delay of more than 7 or 6 years. Consequently, we are inclined to reject the assessee s condonation prayer and dismiss these appeals as being time-barred. - Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Judicial Member And Shri B.M. Biyani, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Rakesh K. Mangal, CA. For the Revenue : Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR. ORDER PER B.M. BIYANI, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-orders dated 31.12.2015 23.01.2017 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Bhopal [ CIT(A) ], which in turn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected penalty matters u/s 271(1)(c) and consulted with a different counsel for filing of appeals in penalty matters that the assessee came to know that the counsel had not filed appeals against impugned orders. Immediately thereafter, the assessee arranged to file these appeals on 03.07.2023 alongwith appeals in penalty matters. Thus, there is no lethargy or negligence on the part of assessee in making delay in filing present appeals. Relying upon decisions in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmla Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC), Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT (2017) 251 Taxmann 270 (Bombay HC) and Oracle India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2008) 13 DTR 372 (ITAT, Delhi), Ld. AR prayed to condone the delay in present matters. During arguments, when the Bench raised a pointed query to Ld. AR as to the period upto which the previous counsel handled assessee s tax matters, Ld. AR asserted standing at the Bar that he worked till the year 2020. 4. Per contra, Ld. DR for revenue strongly opposed assessee s prayer with following contentions: (i) He submitted that there is a delay of 7 years 104 days in one case and 6 years 83 days 7 years in other case. He described these delays as inordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven at the time of filing appeals of those other years, the assessee did not take care to see the status of present-appeals and at least a delay of 10 months from 07.09.2022 to 03.07.2023 is directly due to sheer negligence of assessee. Therefore, the assessee does not deserve any sympathy. (vi) Lastly, he relied upon decisions in Mani Mandir Sewa Nyas Samiti Ramghat Ayodhya Vs. CIT (2020) 119 taxmann.com 383 (SC) and Royal Stiches (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2023) 156 taxmann.com 361 (Madras HC) and also filed copies of orders immediately after conclusion of hearing, acknowledged by Inward Entry No. 1725 by the office of ITAT, to show that the courts have rejected condonation in such cases. 5. We have considered rival contentions of both sides and perused the orders of lower-authorities as well as the material held on record to which our attention has been drawn. We are aware of section 253(5) of the Act which empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a sufficient cause for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. We are also conscious of the landmark judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred on 17-4-2019. The main excuse of delay in filing of appeal is in reference to the Manager, who said to be suffering from many ailments. There is nothing on record to show that Late Padam Prakash Singh was suffering from ailments and was such an ailment which did not permit him to take initiative for filing of appeal. It was otherwise duty of the assessee to watch the affairs of its firm and in any case, Late Padam Prakash Singh died on 22-11-2017. At least thereupon, the assessee was expected to file appeal immediately but it was filed almost after one and half years. The delay in filing the appeal is not of few days or months but is of more than four and half years. 6. Taking note of the aforesaid, we do not find any ground to condone the delay. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. [Emphasis supplied] 6. The grossly negligent attitude of assessee is further discernible from one more fact. As can be seen from first pages of impugned orders reproduced earlier in Para No. 4(iv) of this order, the assessee received impugned orders on 20.01.2016 and 13.02.2017. Thus, when the assessee received later order on 13.02.2017, wasn t it a duty of assessee t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See Manindra Land and Building Corpn. Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee [AIR 1964 SC 1336], Mata Din v. A. Narayanan[(1969) 2 SCC 770], Parimal v. Veena [(2011) 3 SCC 545] and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai [(2012) 5 SCC 157 ].) (b) Ajay Dabre Vs. Pyare Ram 2023 SCC Online SC 92: '13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer while rejecting an application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows: 15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the sufficient cause which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
