TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 976
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ature in all these cases is that there is delay of 580 days in filing the appeals, wherein the appeals are stated to have been filed belatedly after noticing the judgment of ITAT, "E" Bench, Mumbai in the case of Shivalik Venture Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Circle-8 (in ITA No. 2008/Mum/2012/2009-10 vide order dated 19-08-2015) in connection with computation of book profits u/s 115JB of the IT Act. Though affidavits are filed in each case by different Assessees, in their capacity as Directors of the said company, the reason given in each of the affidavit is verbatim identical and hence we reproduce the reasons given in the case of M/s Parabati Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd: "2. The company has no Managing Director. 3. This aff idavit is being f iled to exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lity u/s 115JB of the IT Act, as returned by the Assesees, was accepted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and therefore it was felt that there is no need to file an appeal. Subsequently, in the light of the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Shivalik Ventures Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra), Shri Vijaya Prasad Chartered Accountant was of the opinion that appeals need be filed in all these cases and accordingly a decision was taken by all the Assessees to file appeals, without further delay. He strongly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others in 167 ITR 471 (SC) which in turn was followed by the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of The Phoenix Mills ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opriate steps, delay need not be condoned. In the said case, the department could not even give explanation for not applying for certified copy and there was delay at every stage without mentioning as to why such delay had occurred. Ld. DR also relied upon by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002]253 ITR 798/122 Taxman 114(SC), wherein it was observed that though the principle of advancing substantial justice deserves to be given prime importance a distinction must be made between cases where there is inordinate delay and a case where there is a delay of few days; the action of the parties should reflect their anxiety to minimize the delay as otherwise such delay cannot be condoned. Courts ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al delay of more than one month in filing the appeals; in fact the appeals were filed on 24-10-2016. For the period of more than one month, no explanation was rendered. It is not in dispute that in the matter of condonation of delay pedantic approach should be avoided but, at the same time delay of more than one month cannot be condoned without any explanation, particularly when there was substantial delay of more than 580 days by the time the Assessees have taken a decision to prefer appeals. At least from the date of taking a decision to prefer appeals, the Assessees should have acted swiftly and without further delay appeals should have been filed but the very fact that the parties herein have taken their own sweet time of more than 30 d....