TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 495
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the appeal belatedly which were not disputed nor found frivolous, thus the delay was not held as deliberate or as a result of negligence and hence ought to have decided on merit as the issue was similar to the dismissed appeal of A.Y.2010-11." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a limited company and being engaged in the business of agrochemical and pharmaceutical industry filed its return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 on 30th September, 2009 declaring total income of `4,30,35,560/-. Subsequently the case has been reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") for the reasons recorded on the basis of information received from the DGIT (Inv), Mumbai which suggests that the assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation entries provided by hawala operator, M/s. Globex International, which resulted in under assessment of income. Accordingly notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 19.02.2013 was issued and served on the assessee. In the meantime, there was a survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 28.12.2912. During the survey, a statement on oath was recorded from the Director, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the assessee failed to make out sufficient and reasonable cause in not filing the appeal within the time prescribed under the Act and accordingly the delay in filing of appeal of 285 days cannot be condoned. With this observation, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before us. 6. At the time of hearing, the learned A.R. submitted that there is a delay of 2 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of the delay along with an affidavit as per which there was a bonafide mistake in computing the number of days. Therefore the delay of 2 days is not intentional and accordingly the same may be condoned. The learned D.R., on the other hand, opposing the condonation of delay submitted that each and every day of delay needs to be explained with sufficient cause. Since the assessee has failed to explain the reasons for not filing the appeal within time, the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. 7. Having heard both the sides and considered material on record, we found that the assessee has explained the reasons for delay of 2 da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of delay in filing the appeal and accordingly the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) may be directed to be condoned. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishing Meghani vs. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250. The assessee also relied upon the following case law: - i. Faisal Hameed vs. ITO (2013) 256 CTR 429 (J & K) ii. International Air Transport Association vs. ADIT (2016) 179 TTJ 254 (Mum-Trib) iii. ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (2017) 154 DTR 241 (Del) (SB). iv. Vinod Agarwal vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 61 ITR(T) 598 (Kol-Trib) v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness vs. DDIT (Exemptions) (2008) 15 DTR 633 (Bang-Trib) vi. N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCS 123 (SC) 9. The learned D.R., on the other hand, strongly supporting the order of the CIT(A) submitted that the CIT(A) has discussed the case in the light of various judicial precedents and held that the assessee failed to make out sufficient and reasonable ground for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and accordingly there is no merit in the arguments of the assessee that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d" for filing this appeal after expiry of 285 days from the day of limitation. It can be seen from the admission of the appellant as well as present Ld. Authorised Representative that there was conscious decision not to file the appeal of this A.Y.2009-10. When there is a decision for not filing the appeal, there is no valid reason to be considered by this office for condonation of delay. When there is an advice from a reputed Chartered Accountant's Firm namely, M/s. Shah & Katheria that appellant has no merit for filing appeal, and accordingly, when there is a decision of the appellant/Directors of the company, not to file appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer, later on merely on the ground that, while appearing for A.Y.2010-11 before the Appellate Authority, an advice was given by another Chartered Accountant that appeal of this year should have been filed, cannot be presumed to be any ground for diluting the law u/s.249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Under this Section, the first Appellate Authority may on good and sufficient reason for the delay shown by the appellant, admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of limitation. Therefore, the cause for delaye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. Voltas Ltd; AIR 1995 Gujarat 29, 43 Full Bench has clarified that "sufficient cause" is a question of fact, hence, whether to condone the delay or not, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, unless genuine, correct and sufficient cause is demonstrated, such time-barred appeal cannot be admitted. 3.6 The appellant has to show sufficient cause for not filing the appeal on the last day of limitation and must explain the delay made thereafter, day by day, till the actual date of filing of the appeal. In other words, the whole of the delay must be explained see Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd; AIR 1962 SC 361, 364; Sitaram Ramcharan v. M.N. Nagarshana, (1960) 1 SCR 875, 889 + AIR 1960 SC 260, 265- 66; J.B. Advani & Co. Pro Ltd. v. R.D. Shah, CIT (1969) 72 ITR 395 (SC); Sandhya Rani Sarkar v. Sudha Rani Debi, AIR 1978 SC 537, 542; Soorajmull Nagarmal v. Golden Fibre & Products, AIR 1969 Ca1.381, 384; Bhaktipada Majhi v. SDO, AIR 1971 Cal.204]. Sufficient cause has to be shown in respect of falling within the prescribed statutory period [see Baliram Prasad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 292, 294. 3.7. Th....