TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1327
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. There has been a delay of 614 days on the part of the assessee in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit dated 06.01.2018 stating: "I Mahesh Pandurang Naik S/o Pandurang Shivram Naik aged 51 years, residing at 306-B Wing, Ashish Apartments, Near Shankar Mandir, Bhayandar (W), Thane-401 101 having PAN ADQPN4963L, do hereby state and declare on solemn affirmation as follows:- That the Appellate order of the AY 2011-12 against which I have preferred an Appeal to Hon. ITAT was passed on 02/03/2016, and was dispatched by post to my address which was unfortunately received by my friend's son and was never given to me by him as he inadvertently failed to remember to forward that to me. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e or on account of malafides on the part of the assessee nor any dilatory tactics nor deliberate inaction. The assessee, therefore, submits that the delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal be condoned so that justice can be done to the facts of the case. 3. In support of his contentions that the delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal be condoned, the Ld. counsel of the assessee relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector (L.A.) v. Mst Katiji & Ors [1987] 2 SCC 107 and the order of the Tribunal dated 18.03.2016 in M/s Lahoti Overseas Ltd. v. DCIT (ITA No. 3786/Mum/2012 for AY 2002-03). The Ld. counsel files a copy of the above decisions. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the order of the Tribunal on Ku....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any and due to inadvertent mistake, the papers and documents, related to appeal remained to be handed over, which caused the delay. The Tribunal, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mst Katiji & Ors (supra), N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) condoned the above delay of 2191 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In Mst Katiji & Ors (supra), the principles of valuation was dismissed as time barred being 4 days beyond time by rejecting an application for condonation of delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, setting aside the order of the High Court dismissing the appeal before it as time barred, held : "1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther said order can be said to be without jurisdiction and is required to be treated as non-est. 4.2 At this juncture, we refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn. [2010] 5 SCC 459, wherein the legal position relating to condonation of delay has been examined, the decision in Katiji (supra) has been discussed and broad principles for adjudicating the issue of condonation of delay has been laid down in paras 14 & 15 as under: '14. We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the recent decision of this Court in Esha Bhattacharjee [Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, reported in [2013] 12 SCC 649, where several principles were culled out to be kept in mind while dealing with such applications for condonation of delay. Principles (iv), (v), (viii), (ix) and (x) of para 21 can be usefully referred to, which read as under: (SCC pages 658-59): 21.4(iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. 21.5. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. 21.8. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and....