TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (10) TMI 103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to get the delay condoned with the following averments : " The assessee has filed appeals against the orders of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bareilly for the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 along with this application. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was communicated to his counsel Sri Ram Ji Das on 20-12-1988. The assessee asked him to file the appeal against the said order. It is pointed out that the assessee is engaged in the business of Exports and turnover runs into Crores and so he has to live mostly out of the country. Since then, he was in the impression that the appeals have been filed by his counsel Sri Ram Ji Das. Unfortunately on 21-2-1991 Sri Ram Ji Das expired and he engaged ano....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o be preferred, for, the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in justice being done because of non-deliberate delay. Shri Sampath further contended that there could be no deliberate intention on the part of the assessee to delay the filing of appeal. Shri Sampath further drew our attention to appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 (IT Appeal Nos. 4727 & 4728/Del./92) which were also fixed before the Bench and in which same issue was involved. The said appeals being in time, the issue was required to be considered on merit. In the above circumstances, cause of justice would be advanced if the delay is condoned and appeals are disposed of on merits. These submissions of Shri Sampath were opposed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sel for the appellant-company has laid a great deal of stress on the hardship involved in the case. It can hardly be gainsaid that the company, even according to the order of the Tribunal, could have claimed a set off of the loss in question during the assessment year 1952-53. It was only for the first time before the Tribunal during the hearing of the appeal relating to the assessment year 1953-54 that the question was raised on behalf of the department that this loss was not allowable in the assessment year 1953-54. The company had, for good reasons, thought that, since the payment which had been made in settlement of contracts were recorded in the books for the year ending March 31, 1953, the loss was claimable during the assessment year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the period between the decision of the Tribunal and the date of the application (from July 7, 1964 to August 21, 1964). The application which was filed under section 33A of the Act is completely barren of any explanation for this delay which had to be properly and satisfactorily explained. " The aforesaid decision is fully applicable to the facts of the case and it is held that delay in the present case has not been properly and satisfactorily explained. 6. The learned counsel relied upon decision in Mst. Katiji's case. In the said case where State was applicant seeking condonation of delay, the court held that on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with note making, file pushing, and passing ....