TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 847
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion by the appellant as below: 4. In light of above facts, the question before us is whether there was "sufficient cause" on the part of the appellant for an inordinate delay of 2403 days in filing the subject appeal? 5. At this point, it is pertinent to mention that the condonation petition has been filed under section 5 of the limitation Act, 1963. Under section 253(5) of the Act, powers have been conferred on the Appellate Tribunal to condone the delay and admit an appeal where it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1961 are pari materia to the provisions of section 253(5) of the Act, as both the provisions stipulated that after expiry of stipulated period of limitation as per provisions of the relevant Act, if the Court is satisfied that there was a "sufficient cause" for not filing the appeal within prescribed period, then the appeal may be admitted for hearing on merits by condoning the delay. In light of the same, we are not averse to hearing the subject application and treating the same as filed in compliance with provisions of section 253(5) of the Act. 5. Before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cause for condoning the delay of 427 days in filing the SLPs before the Supreme Court. In para 12 & 13 of its order, the Supreme Court held: "12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Appellant is fully aware of the remedy available to him under the law where he can file an appeal against an order which has denied him the necessary relief as sought in his application under section 80G of the Act. More importantly, the appellant had said clearly in his application that he was fully aware of the timelines for filing the subject appeal within a period of 60 days of receipt of the order i. E., by 7.07.2008. 7. In light of above facts, it is clear that the appellant was fully aware of his legal rights and remedies which were available to him by way of filing an appeal before us to seek the necessary relief against the rejection of his application under section 80G of the Act and the timeframe for filing such an appeal. The appellant thus cannot plead ignorance of the legal recourse and the time frame for seeking such legal recourse. The only thing which remains to be examined is the reason(s) for the delay in filing the subject appeal by the appellant. 8. The appellant, in his application as well as affidavit, has mentioned that he had handed over a copy of the CIT's order passed under section 80G of the Act to the clerk of his Counsel before he left. Ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ur considered view, the action or rather inaction on part of the appellant shows clear gross negligence in not taking the necessary steps in filing the subject appeal in time and the same cannot be accepted. In such a case, the appellant has no legal right to expect a liberal approach from us in condoning the delay notwithstanding the merits, if any in the matter. 11. Considering the fact that the appellant has neglected its own right for a long time in preferring the subject appeal on account of gross negligence, lack of action and in absence of satisfactory explanation offered by the appellant for the inordinate delay of 2403 days, we are of the considered view that the appellant has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion under section 253(5) of the Act to condone the delay and the subject appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. 12. In the result, we dismiss the subject appeal as barred by limitation. Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the captioned page. ============= Document 1 धारा-1 ....