Tribunal dismisses appeals due to untimely filing and lack of sufficient cause, finding assessee's conduct not bona fide.

The Tribunal rejected the applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals due to the assessee's failure to demonstrate sufficient cause. The delay of 2 years, 11 months, and 15 days was not condoned, leading to the dismissal of the six appeals as being time-barred. The Tribunal found the assessee's conduct not bona fide, as relevant facts were suppressed, including the filing of applications under section 154 and receipt of orders from the Assessing Officer.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing appeals.
2. Application for condonation of delay.
3. Examination of sufficient cause for delay.
4. Department's objections to condonation.
5. Legal precedents and principles for condonation of delay.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing Appeals:
The appeals by the assessee for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1986-87 and 1990-91 were filed with a delay of 2 years, 11 months, and 15 days, totaling 1079 days. The permissible period for filing an appeal under section 253(3) is sixty days from the date the order of the CIT(A) was communicated to the assessee.

2. Application for Condonation of Delay:
The assessee initially filed applications for condonation of delay, stating that the delay was due to the misplacement of the CIT(A)'s order by a clerk, who was subsequently punished. These applications were bald and unaccompanied by affidavits. Revised applications were later filed with supporting documents, including affidavits and a death certificate of the clerk's son.

3. Examination of Sufficient Cause for Delay:
The assessee argued that the delay was due to the misplacement of the CIT(A)'s order by the Dak Receipt & Despatch Clerk, who was in a disturbed state of mind due to his son's death. The department countered this by presenting evidence that the assessee had knowledge of the CIT(A)'s order through various applications and orders passed by the Assessing Officer, which mentioned the CIT(A)'s order.

4. Department's Objections to Condonation:
The department argued that the reasons provided by the assessee were untruthful and an attempt to mislead the Tribunal. They presented documentary evidence showing that the assessee had filed applications under section 154 and received orders from the Assessing Officer, which mentioned the CIT(A)'s order. The department also pointed out that the assessee had encashed a refund issued based on these orders.

5. Legal Precedents and Principles for Condonation of Delay:
The Tribunal referred to several legal precedents, including:
- Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji: The Supreme Court held that sufficient cause should be interpreted to do even-handed justice on merits.
- Ram Kishan v. U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation: The Supreme Court condoned the delay despite the reason not being convincing, due to the extreme shock suffered by the claimants.
- Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil: The Supreme Court emphasized a pragmatic approach, distinguishing between inordinate delays and delays of a few days.
- CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that delay could be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons, supported by cogent evidence.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to show sufficient cause for the delay. The assessee's conduct was not bona fide, as they suppressed relevant facts and did not disclose the filing of applications under section 154 and the receipt of orders from the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the delay of 2 years, 11 months, and 15 days in filing the appeals was not entitled to be condoned. The applications for condonation of delay were rejected, and the six appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as being barred by limitation.

---