TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 1100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has filed the present appeal on 10-05-2012 and since that date, it is getting adjourned on one reason or another. When the appeal was taken up for hearing on 27.02.2014, the assessee was directed to furnish a copy of delay condonation petition to the Ld D.R and accordingly the case was adjourned to 13.05.2014 in order to give time to the revenue to counter the affidavit filed by the assessee. Since no one appeared on behalf of the assessee on 13.05.2014, the case was adjourned to 22.07.2014. On that occasion, the bench noticed that the Ld D.R, appearing on that date, was ignorant of the delay as well as about the delay condonation petition filed by the assessee. Hence, the bench passed the following order on that date:- "This appeal by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue is advised not to change D.R again so as to claim that the present D.R is not aware of the contents of the earlier proceedings. Parties informed." After passing the above said order, the bench adjourned the case to 31.07.2014. 3. On 31.07.2014, the ld D.R filed a paper book prepared by the assessing officer containing the details of fact of the case, copies of assessment order, copies of proceedings before Ld CIT(A) and copies of documents filed before ITAT. Thus, it is seen that the revenue did not bother to examine the affidavit filed by the assessee and offer their submissions. Despite informing the Ld D.R that the affidavit filed by the assessee may have to be countered with by filing a counter affidavit, no action appears to have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... However, since the assessing officer has made some observation in the paper book under the title "Facts of the case", we proceed to examine the reasons furnished by the assessee for the delay in filing the impugned appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit, wherein the assessee has deposed as under:- "1. I was assessed to tax with the ACIT 23(3), Mumbai for AY 2002-03. 2. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-XXIII, Mumbai had passed order under section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment year 2002-03 dt. 31.08.2006. 3. The appeal against the said orders were required to be filed within the sixty days of the receipt of the order. 4. I had filed rectification application u/s 154 with the office of CIT(A)- XXIII,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ief that he had filed rectification application u/s 154 to the CIT(A) against the order passed and appeal to the ITAT can be filed only after rectification order is passed is also not found to be acceptable on the facts that the time limit (60 days) for filing appeal to the Hon'ble ITAT was lapsed before the date of filing the rectification application as the assessee had filed the rectification application u/s 154 only on 29.01.2007 against the order of appeal passed on 31.08.2006. On that other hand, there is an inordinate delay of 793 days in filing appeal to the ITAT even after the date of rectification order dated 08.03.2010. Further the assessee had given one of the reason for condonation that the application u/s 154 is not yet proce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aterial particulars as to why delay had been caused, the delay could not be condoned by merely accepting the explanation that the delay occurred in the Government Office". The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Soorajamull Nagarmal (supra) has held that:- "The cause for delay in making the application which by due care and attention could have been avoided cannot be a sufficient cause within the meaning of section 5 of Limitation Act. Where no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fides can be imputed to the applicant, a liberal construction of the section has to be made in order to advance substantial justice. The applicant has to show sufficient cause for not filing the application on the last day of the limitation and must ....