2019 (5) TMI 549

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erred to as "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 119/CHD/2015, for the assessment year 2011-12, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- a) Whether the impugned order passed by ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is bad in law being perverse in holding that provisions was not an ascertained liability but a contingent liability and, hence, not allowable under the law? b) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in confirming addition of Rs. 80,18,000/- being provision for service charge on gunny bags without appreciating the evidences adduced in proper and correct spirit, thus, the order is bad in law and deserves to be set aside? c) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in confirming addition of Rs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order dated 26.11.2014 (Annexure A-2), dismissed the appeal except modification to the extent that disallowance was not covered under Section 43B of the Act. Still dissatisfied, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 24.6.2016 (Annexure A-3), affirmed the findings of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal which gave rise to the present appeal. Since, the appeal was barred by limitation, an application bearing CM- 16476-CII-2018 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short "the 1963 Act") for condonation of 482 days' delay in filing the appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. The primary question that arises for consideration in this appeal is w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate-Collector (L.A.) v. Katiji N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil." 7. It was further noticed by the Apex Court in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 892 as under:- ".....It is not necessary at this stage to discuss each and every judgment cited before us for the simple reason that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not lay down any standard or objective test. The test of "sufficient cause" is purely an individualistic test. It is not an objective test. Therefore, no two cases can be treat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to do substantial justice between the parties. The existence of sufficient cause depends upon facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be applied in deciding such cases. 9. The Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. and R.B. Ramlingam's cases (supra) noticed that the courts should adopt liberal approach where delay is of short period whereas the proof required should be strict where the delay is inordinate. Further, it was also 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 indivi....