TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent year 2009-10, claiming following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in not condoning the delay of 1050 days in filing the appeal and holding the same to be time barred? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is not perverse as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has not considered all the reasons stated in the affidavit/revised affidavit filed by the appellant in support of the delay in coming to the conclusion that the appeal is time barred? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has taken a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce there was a delay of 1050 days in filing the appeal. At the time of hearing, the assessee submitted his revised affidavit and a compilation of paper book containing the relevant papers in support of the delay caused in filing the appeal. It was inter alia submitted by the assessee that after the marriage of his daughter was solemnized at Faridabad, there was continuous matrimonial dispute and her daughter was physically abused several times by her in-laws. Thus, the assessee was not in stable condition of mind and could not check whether the appeal had been timely filed before the Tribunal or not. He further submitted that during the relevant period, he suffered huge losses in the business and his assets were taken over by the HDFC Bank.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appeal before the Tribunal within the period of limitation. After considering the matter, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the assessee failed to explain the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause and dismissed the appeal. The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus:- "5. We have considered rival submissions on the point of limitation. In this case the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act has been passed on 29.12.2011. The assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals) on 24.1.2012 and the learned CIT(Appeals) decided the appeal of the assessee on 15.10.2012. The date of marriage of the daughter of the assessee on 29.11.2010, thus, has no relevance and correlation with the abov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication for condonation of delay the assessee submitted that when impugned order was received on 30.11.2012, assessee had requested his counsel to file the appeal before Tribunal but the counsel did not file the appeal due to some confusion. It would, therefore, clearly prove that assessee was aware of the fact that after receipt of the impugned order, assessee was required to file appeal before the Tribunal within limitation so as to challenge the rejection of the books of account and application of higher NP rate in appeal before the Tribunal. Contradictory stand is taken in application of condonation of delay. Therefore, there was no reason to believe that assessee was later on prevented by any sufficient cause for not filing the appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. 15. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter appro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch is based on public policy so as to prescribe time limit for availing legal remedy for redressal of the injury caused. The purpose behind enacting law of limitation is not to destroy the rights of the parties but to see that the uncertainty should not prevail for unlimited period. Under Section 5 of the 1963 Act, the courts are empowered to condone the delay where a party approaching the court belatedly shows sufficient cause for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period. The meaning to be assigned to the expression "sufficient cause" occurring in Section 5 of the 1963 Act should be such so as to do substantial justice between the parties. The existence of sufficient cause depends upon facts of each case and no hard and fast ru....