9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member And Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Manish J Shah, AR For the Revenue : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR ORDER PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ) by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, CIT(A) ], vide order dated 17.10.2023 for assessment year (AY) 2012-13. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: 1. The Learned C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case, in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 2. The Learned C.I.T(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case, in passing a non-speaking order for dismissing the appeal on merits of the case without assigning reasons and without dealing with any of the submissions of the assessee. 3. The Learned C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case, in sustaining the addition of Rs. 28,90,247/- u/s 50C of the Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if need arise. 2. Vide applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, the total consideration was taken at the value determined by the DVO. The share of the assessee was Rs. 35,90,405/-. After reducing index cost of acquisition and improvement of land, the long term capital gains was recomputed at Rs. 28,90,247/-. The total income was assessed at Rs. 28,90,950/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by rejecting the condonation of delay. He has also dismissed the grounds of appeal on merit. 4. The appeal filed by the assessee before Ld.CIT(A) on 02.03.2020 was after 1185 days from the date of the order u/s 143(3) R.W.S. 147 of the Act dated 03.12.2016. As per From-35, service of the order of AO was on 15.12.2016. Therefore, the CIT(A) observed that there was substantial delay of 1154 days (more than 3 years and 1 month) in filing the appeal. However, the appellant had filed a formal application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal and the reasons stated for delay in Form-35 are as under: I hereby inform your goodness that, I am less educated and unaware of legal knowledge and procedures and I have entrusted all income tax related activities to CA Bharatbhai Kaka di and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anything showing mala fide or deliberate delay as a dilatory tactic, the court should normally condone the delay. Acceptability of explanation for the delay is the sole criteria and length of delay is not relevant. In the case of ITAT decision in Mehulkumar Kantilal Patel (supra) there was delay of 120 days in filing appeal which was condoned by the Tribunal on the plea that the appellant was acting on legal advice of his consultant. Both assessment order as well as appellate order were passed in ex parte proceedings. The consultant advised that once the case is decided with the observation that assessee is not interested, no further appeal would lie. Hence, the Tribunal held that there was reasonable cause for condonation of delay in filing appeal before Tribunal. 6. On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay of 1154 days. The Ld. Sr-DR stated that the reasons given by the assessee, as reproduced in the appellate order, would not constitute sufficient cause for the purpose of condoning the delay. The delay is not for a short period but it is for a substantial long period of 1154 days. From the reasons given above, it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, advocate of appellant did not do anything in the court even after receiving payment of Rs. 2,000/- towards advocate fees and other incidental expenses. In fact the advocate left legal profession and joined as legal assistant of M/s Maxworth Orchards India Ltd. The appellant also moved District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madras and the Forum passed final order directing the advocate to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- besides a cost of Rs. 500/-. Though the trial court condoned the delay, the Hon ble High Court set aside the trial court order. Against such order, the Hon ble Supreme Court condoned the delay. It held that length of delay is no matter, acceptability of explanation is the only criterion. It allowed appeal with condition that appellant shall pay Rs. 10,000/- to Respondent. The facts in the present case are distinguishable. In case of N.Balakishnan (supra), the appellant had moved District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and got compensation of Rs. 50,000/- from the advocate. In present case, the appellant has neither filed complaint against his CA (Bharatbhai Kakaria) nor filed any confirmation or affidavit about the fact stated in the reasons given a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation for the delay in filing the appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter relied on its own earlier decisions cited supra where the conduct of the parties in preferring appeals beyond the time prescribed has not been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In various cases, it has been observed that in absence of reasonable and satisfactory cause or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. 7.4 In the case of P. K. Ramachandran (supra) it was observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigor when the statue so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. 7.5 The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its decision in case of Basawaraj (supra) wherein it was observed and held by the Court that discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. It also observed that the expression sufficient cause cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. It is further observed that in case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arly wrong order. The Hon'ble Court summarized the law on the subject issue by stating that where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation of time, the applicant has to explain as to what was the sufficient cause which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court within the 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 acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. 8.2 We also find that in a very recent decision pronounced on 28.04.2024, in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (dies) Ors. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to and discussed various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court namely (i) Bhag Mat (Alias) Ram Bux Ors vs. Munshi (Dead) by LRs Ors (2007) 11 SCC 285 (SC), (ii) Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji 167 ITR 471 (SC)d (iiii) Ramlalf Motilal and Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (supra), (iv) Maqbul Ahmad and Ors vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh and Ors, AIR 1935 PC 85 (SC) (v) Brijesh Kumar and Ors vs. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re-opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 8.4 After discussion on various cases in its order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Para 26 has summed up the law laid down by it as under: 26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that: (i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; (ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time; (iii) The provisions of the Limitation_Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally; (iv) In order to ad vance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
