TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 776
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bjections with the assistance of the learned Departmental representative. 2. Since identical issues are involved, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. We would first like to deal with the assessee's appeal in I. T. A. No. 413/ Indore/2007 and C. O. Nos. 75 and 76/Indore/2009 for the assessment years 2003-04, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. 4. We find from record that I. T. A. No. 413/Indore/2007 is barred by limitation by five days whereas C. O. Nos. 75 and 76/Indore/2009 are barred by 6 years and three days. 5. In respect of I. T. A. Nos. 413/Indore/2007 the learned counsel for the assessee vide letter dated July 7, 2007 has prayed for condonation of delay on the ground that "The said appeal was to be filed latest by Monday June 18, 2007, however while the filing other the papers it came to notice of staff that the said appeal remained to be filed in time. On coming to know of this fact, the appeal was immediately filed on Thursday the June 21, 2007. It was because of these reasons that there was small delay in filing the appeal." So far as C. O. Nos. 75 and 76/Indore/2009 are concerned, we fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant. (ii) In considering the reasons for condonation of delay, the courts are more liberal with reference to applications for setting aside abate ment, than other cases. While the court will have to keep in view that a valuable right accrues to the legal representatives of the deceased respondent when the appeal abates, it will not punish an appellant with foreclosure of the appeal, for unintended lapses. The courts tend to set aside abatement and decided the matter on the merits. The courts tend to set aside abatement and decide the matter on the merits, rather than terminate the appeal on the ground of abatement. (iii) The decisive factor in condonation of delay, is not the length of delay, but sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation. (iv) The extent or degree of leniency to be shown by a court depends on the nature of application and facts and circumstances of the case. For example, courts view delays in making applications in a pending appeal m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the court would be inclined to condone the delay in the filing of such appli cations." 8. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. 9. Section 5 of the Limitation Act deals with condonation of delay in case of appeal. Since the limitation period for appeals is very short, this section is then introduced to meet the end of justice such that the purpose of justice is not defeated merely because there is "sufficient cause" is present due to which an appeal was not p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT [1997] 223 ITR 480 (MP) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default made the following observation in their order : 'If the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.' (iii) In the case of CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. [1991] 38 ITD 320 (Delhi), the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal, which was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing, nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the Revenue as unad mitted in view of the provisions of rule 19 of the Income-tax (Appel late Tribunal) Rules, 1963. 14. In the result, these two appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed for non-prosecution. 15. Now we take up three appeals by the Revenue bearing ITA No. 574/Ind/ ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt. deduction on the total figure) made by the Assessing Officer in the matter of computation of eligible income comprised in the gross total income under section 80B(5) for the purpose of compu tation under section 80HHC(3) ; and (x) Deleting the disallowance of Rs. 6,90,797 and Rs. 1,74,878 made by the Assessing Officer under section 43B on account of belated payment of provident fund contribution and ESI contribu tion." I. T. A. No. 682/Indore/2003 (assessment year 1998-99) 17. In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the findings of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the following grounds : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred- (i) In deleting the addition of Rs. 1,42,966 on account of bad debts. (ii) In restricting the disallowance PF/EPC to Rs. 3,68,454 allowing the relief of Rs. 8,00,688. (iii) In allowing trading loss of Rs. 37,49,447 for allowing deduc tion under section 80-IA (iv) In allowing appeal relating to add of interest on long-term loan of Rs. 16,87,712. (v) In directing the Assessing Office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Appeals) we find that the issues have been adjudicated in a very general way without giving specific finding. At various places there is a mention about various judgments of the hon'ble courts and the Tribunal but the citations are not given in the absence of which it is not possible to find out the judgments. We take for instance the issue relating to deduction under section 80HHC(3) of the Act. This issue is common for all the three assessment years. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in I. T. A. No. 574/Indore/2002 has given the following findings in his appellate order : "10.1 This ground relates to adjustment of loss on export of trading and manufacturing goods against the claim of 90 per cent. deduction on total figure of export incentives of Rs. 2,91,34,000 + 90,19,035 as per proviso to section 80HHC(3). 10.2 This issue stands well settled in favour of the assessee as per various decisions and as accepted by the hon'ble Income-tax Appel late Tribunal, Indore Bench in the appeals of the assessee-company for the assessment years 1993-94 to 1996-97 after detailed discussion. Following the decision of the hon'ble Bench, this claim of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respect of export of manufactured and treading goods is wrong as held by the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench in the appel lant-company's own case in earlier years. This issue stands settled in favour of the assessee as per various decisions and as accepted by the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench in the appeals of the assessee-company for the assessment years 1993-94 to 1996-97 after detailed discussion. Following the decision of the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, this claim of the assessee is allowed." The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the same fash ion has dealt with other grounds also and the details of the facts as well as the basis of deciding the issues is not properly emanating from the appel late order. In some way we can say that the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is cryptic and does not deal prop erly with the issues involved so much so that the citations of the judgments relied upon by him have not been given. Further there is none at the asses see's behest to provide us necessary details which can enable us to adjudicate the issues in prope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the assessee on or before the due date of filing of return as stipulated in section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act. That Special Bench in the case of Kwality Milk Foods v. Asst. CIT reported in [2006] 284 ITR (AT) 89 (Chennai) has confirmed the above view. I have considered the argument put forth by the learned authorised representative before me in detail and also go through the decision relied on by him. I find sufficient force in arguments of the assessee. Since in the present case all contribution towards provident fund and ESI were made by the assessee on or before the due dates of the filing of the return of income. Thus, in view of amended provi sions of law and after considering the decisions of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench the claim of the assessee is allow able. The Assessing Officer is therefore directed to allow the claim of the assessee in respect of provident fund and ESIC payments of Rs. 18,38,522 and Rs. 4,42,271 respectively." 22. Before us, the learned Departmental representative could not controvert the above findings of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). We, therefore, confirm the findings of the learned Commissioner....