9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in ITA No.192 to 193/Ahd/2021 vide order dated 28/03/2024 condoned the delay of 1607 days on identical set of facts and the Tribunal order has become final, since the assessee had not received any notice from the High Court of Gujarat against the above Tribunal order. 4. Ld CIT DR though strongly opposed the huge delay in filing the appeals by the assessee and no sufficient cause made out by the assessee. Ld DR could not place on record any details of Revenue's appeal before Gujarat High Court against the earlier order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the decision passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the earlier asst. year which reads as follows: "... 4.1. At the outset, we note that there was a delay of 1607 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. There were condonation petition and affidavits filed by the assessee. The reasons specified therein for the delay was ill health and bankruptcy eventually running away from the society and police which has created lot of stress upon the assessee. The assessee has also filed the affidavits vide dated 23rd July 2021 and 23rd January 2024 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay for 20 years approximately by holding that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Thus, the delay in the instant case is just of 1607 number of days which cannot be considered to be inordinate or excessive in comparison to the delay of 7330 days approximately. 6.2 The next controversy arises what is the sufficient cause, it has not been defined anywhere under the Act but refers to an occasion which is beyond the control of a normal person. What is beyond the control of a person, the test of reasonable approach under normal circumstances should be applied. As such no hard and fast rule can be applied to figure out the weather there was sufficient cause for the delay. It depends upon case-to-case basis. However, the Hon'ble Courts in the series of judgements have held that while condoning the delay the expression of sufficient cause should be construed for advancing substantial justice to the party concerned. For evaluating sufficiency of cause and then, for deciding condonation of delay, following principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471) shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... text, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting 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 Moniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai (2012) 5- SCC 157].)" (b) Ajay Dabre v. Pyare Ram 2023 SCC Online SC 92: '13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj v. Specia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... light of the above stated discussion, we proceed to evaluate whether the delay in the present case needs to be condoned in the given facts and circumstances. From the medical details filed by the assessee, we find that the assessee was having one or the other medical issues right from the financial years 2008-09 to 2019-20 which may not be of serious concern, but the ill-health of the assessee cannot be ruled out. Likewise, the assessee in the affidavit has also submitted that he was under a lot of financial stress and was declared as an insolvent. Furthermore, he was running away from the police and society. There was also a case against the assessee of cheque bouncing as evident from the details available on record. If we aggregate all these factors, the fact that the assessee was having a stressful life cannot be ruled out and assessee was not in sound mind to take correct decisions on legal proceedings. 6.9 Besides the above, we note that all the credits in the form of cheque and cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee has been added to the total income of the assessee. The AO has done so in the absence of any cooperation from the side of the assessee despite the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondoned irrespective of the duration/period of the delay. In this case, the non-filing of an affidavit by the Revenue for opposing the condonation of delay itself is sufficient for condoning the delay of 1607 number of days. We also note that there is no allegation from the Revenue that the appeal was not filed by the assessee within the time deliberately. Therefore, we are inclined to prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. We also find that if we reject the application of the assessee for condoning the delay then it would amount to legalise injustice on technical ground whereas the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. Thus, we condone the delay of 1607 days in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. 5. There is no change in facts in filing this appeal belatedly like that of the earlier asst. years. Since the earlier order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal is not been reversed by High Judicial forum, therefore we have no hesitation in following the earlier order passed by the Tribunal and we hereby condone the delay of 1607 days in filing the appeal. On merits of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as well as hon. Tribunal. 3. After that I have appointed consultant in February 2021 for filing appeal before hon.ITAT, since no records was available with me, I have applied to hon. CIT(A) to provide me copy of order on 23.02.2021 and according the appeals were filed before hon. ITAT as indicated in above table. 4. The hon.ITAT was pleased to condon delay and orders of assessing officer was set-aside for de-novo assessment in ITA No. 192/AHD/2021 and ITA No.193/AHD/2021 but adjournment was taken in ITA No. 191/AHD/2021 and ITA No. 194/AHD/2021 for filing fresh appeal against order of Ld.CIT(A) against order u/s. 144 passed by Ld. AO, which was filed on 03.02.2024 as ITA No. 190/AHD/2024 on advice of CA. Chetan Agarwal who was appointed on 23.01.2024 to represent matter before hon.ITAT, since as per his opinion ITA No.191/AHD/2021 filed on 11.08.2021 in not maintainable which was filed against order passed rejecting application u/s. 154 for rectifying order passed by AO u/s. 144 of the Act. 5. That further delay in filing appeal no. 190/AHD/2024 was occurred since CA. Chetan Agarwal was appointed to represent matter before Hon. ITAT on 23.01.2024 since Hon. ITAT at the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
