TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 640
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re A.3, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (in short, "the Tribunal") in I.T.A. No.429/Chd/2013, for the assessment year 2005-06, claiming following substantial questions of law:- "A) Whether the ITAT is justified in rejecting the appeal against order under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, on the ground of delay though supported by affidavit of counsel in support of delay ignoring merits of the case and against well settled law that confirmation of order on quantum does not imply confirmation of penalty wherein under similar facts and circumstances, this Hon'ble High Court had condoned the delay in the case of Shri Harish Kumar Chhabra Vs. CIT Ludhiana (2013) 50 I.T. Rep. 389 (P&H)? B) Whether the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the same, made addition to the income of the assessee. On the second issue, regarding addition of Rs. 5,20,889/-, on account of unaccounted work done, it was explained to the Assessing Officer that the various items could not be accounted for in the books of account due to clerical error. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 11,13,430/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, vide order dated 27.09.2010, Annexure A.1 as the quantum was confirmed. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 06.06.2011, Annexure A.2, the appeal was dismissed confirming the penalty. The appeal before the Tribunal was to be filed within 60 days. It was only in April 2013 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order passed by the Tribunal in quantum appeal that the error was noticed and the counsel realized the mistake about non filing of the penalty appeal under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was categorically recorded by the Tribunal after examining the entire material that the assessee could not bring on record any evidence or reasons to demonstrate that she was prevented by inevitable circumstances or there was a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time which was late by 613 days. Thus, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the same. 5. This Court in VAT Appeal No. 47 of 2012 (M/s Hansaflon Plasto Chem. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and others) decided on 5.07.2012 following the decisions of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... observed that judgments dealing with the condonation of delay may not lay down any standard or objective test but is purely an individualistic test. The court is required to examine while adjudicating the matter relating to condonation of delay on exercising judicial discretion on individual facts involved therein. There does not exist any exhaustive list constituting sufficient cause. The applicant/petitioner is required to establish that inspite of acting with due care and caution, the delay had occurred due to circumstances beyond his control and was inevitable." 6. The question regarding whether there is sufficient cause or not depends upon each case and primarily is a question of fact to be considered taking into totality of events....