TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 280
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of argument advanced on behalf of the assessee is identical to the application by submitting that the concerned persons have filed affidavits. In its 7-pages application the assessee has enumerated the reasons for delay in filing the appeal, wherein, broadly it has been mentioned that the assessee firm is having specific departments to look after different task/business and is having a taxation department for taxation matters headed by an executive, normally a chartered accountant or a person having similar expertise and experience. One Shri Bhavesh Jain, CA was claimed to be appointed as a head of the taxation department on 3/11/2008 and one more appointment on 1/7/2010 as a finance head, further looking after taxation department. It was explained that Shri Bhavesh Jain attended assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer and also before the ld. First Appellate Authority. It was claimed that Shri Jain, did not object to the validity of notice issued u/s.143(2) of the Act, and thus, new head, of taxation department, Mr. Sunil Kukreja, was appointed on 15/6/2011. It was pleaded that the Directors were under the impression that CA Sunil Kukreja and Sanjay Shah were in the pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner of Income tax (Appeals) assessee has filed second appeal before the Tribunal on 24/5/2013 resulting into delay of 373 days . Now question arises whether the delay was unintentional or the reasons for such delay were bonafide. The assessee through its application for condonation of delay has claimed that the assessee is assisted by different heads for different departments and more specifically the taxation department was headed by an experienced/expert Chartered Accountant/executive assisted by other qualified person/persons/Finance Head. It is further noted that the expert persons attended the assessment proceedings from 3/11/2008 to 31/8/2011 meaning thereby, right from assessment stage the assessee firm was assisted by expert persons. Even as mentioned by the assessee itself, the taxation head Shri Bhavesh Jain did not raise any objection to the validity of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act and another head Shri Sunil Kukreja was appointed on 15/6/2011. It is admitted fact that right from assessment stage the assessee firm was assisted by expert persons. The assessee claimed to have received the first appellate order on 19/3/2012 and still now the assessee is claiming that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It is not a case of delay of few days. If this substantial delay is condoned then there is no meaning of Limitation Act. We are aware that the "substantial cause of justice" is also of paramount importance but "sufficient cause" for advancing substantial justice has to be adduced/explained. Before us, the assessee has not proved with evidence or reasons that the assessee was prevented by unavoidable circumstances or there was a "sufficient cause" in not filing the appeal in time, which is delayed by 373 days. As per sec. 253 of the Act, any assessee/party aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority or the order of the Chief Commissioner or a Director General or a Director, may file appeal before the Tribunal within sixty days from receipt of the order by the assessee/party/department (as the case may be), whereas in the present case, the appeal has been filed after 373 days from the expiry of the limitation period provided u/s 253 of the Act. Our view is further fortified by the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Madras High Court in Madhu Dadha vs. ACIT (2009) 317 ITR 458 (Mad) where the assessee failed to show reasonable cause for the delay. The Hon'ble High Court held ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... type of matter, we are expected to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or merely a device to cover-up with ulterior purpose such as, laches on the part of the Counsel or an attempt to save limitation in an unjustified manner. The court must see whether, in such cases, there is any taint of mala fides or element of recklessness or ruse. At the same time, the assessee is expected to explain each day's delay. Totality of facts clearly indicates that the story explained by the assessee is without any basis. Even otherwise, a line has to be drawn between the 'bona fide litigants' and who concoct the story on the basis of after-thought. We further find support from the decision of the Indore bench of the Tribunal (wherein one of us (JM) was signatory to the order), in the case of M/s. Vaishnav Fibres (ITA No.398/Ind./2011 of May 2013, wherein there was delay of 347 days, the Tribunal dismissed the application/appeal of the assessee. The requirement of the law is to consider whether the reasons contended by the assessee for condonation of delay are bonafide and also whether the assessee has acted with reasonable diligence and also whether the assessee was prevented by sufficient cau....