TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 859
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nation of delay was heard at length. 2. During hearing, Shri Prakash Jain, learned Counsel for the assessee contended that the application for condonation of delay of 347 days may be considered. It was submitted that the order of the ld. first appellate authority was received by the employee of the assessee company, who did not inform about receipt of the order, therefore, the appeal could not be filed in time. The assessee has also filed an affidavit sworn by Jyoti Sahu. The learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decisions in the cases of Jetu Steels vs. DCIT (19 ITJ 616) (MP) and Sujata Verma vs. ITO (2012) 20 ITJ 5 (Indore ITAT). On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR strongly contended that the delay may not be condoned as the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xed for hearing on 26.3.2012, nobody appeared for the assessee. On 22.5.2012, the assessee sought adjournment. Identical is the situation on 5.7.2012, 23.7.2012, 6.8.2012. Ultimately, on 6.8.2012, the learned Counsel for the assessee withdrew his power of attorney. Again notice was sent and application for adjournment was filed on 10.9.2012. Again opportunity was given to the assessee on 13.2.2013 to comply with the order sheet dated 23.7.2012. On 20.3.2013, again adjournment application was moved. However, finally the application for condonation of delay was heard on 6.5.2013. We further find that two affidavits have been filed, one by Shri Raj Ajmera, stating that one Ms. Jyoti Sahu, office assistant kept the order of the ld. CIT(A) in a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iscretion u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone delay for sufficient cause in not preferring an appeal or other application within the period prescribed, courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor and calls for a more cautious approach, in the later case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard. The court has to exercise its discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the expression "sufficient cause" the pri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 that the delay may not be condoned. The ratio laid down by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) (MP) further supports our view. So far as the decision in the case of Sujata Verma (supra) is concerned, the facts are altogether different, therefore, may not help the assessee. Identical is the situation in the case of Jetu Steels (supra) wherein the Tribunal had not gone into reas....