TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 914
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enhancement of the sales turnover from Rs. 2,00,49,352/- to Rs. 6,68,31,173/-, is also arbitrary. The above estimate is purely on a mechanical basis by multiplying the declared turnover applying a formula of 100/30, which has resulted in estimation of suppressed turnover of Rs. 4,67,81,821/-. Absolutely, no material is brought on record or referred to, in order to apply the formula of 100/30 pertaining to the appellant's business, which is different and separate from other business concerns, whose turnover and profits are referred to. 4. It is respectfully submitted that the estimate of profit at 20% of the suppressed turnover is also arbitrary and illegal. Absolutely, no material or evidence is relied on for estimating profit at 20% of the turnover, which is presumably shown as a concession as against 22% taken in the original Assessment Order dated 3112.2009. 5. In this connection, it is also respectfully submitted that the reference to the trading results of various other firms at Kottayam, Kollam and Kottarakkara, and a comparison sought to be made to the trading results of those business firms with the trade results of the appellant's proprietary business at Thiruv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner in the petition for condonation of delay, for the Assessment tear 2008-09. The appeal is filed against the common order dated 31.03.2016 in I.T.A. No.346/M/CIT(A)-lV/Kochi/2015-16 and connected appeal passed by the ClT(A)-lV, Kochi. 3. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-lV, Kochi, vide I.T.A. No.346/ClT(A)-lV/Kochi/2015-16, was disposed of by order dated 31.03.2016. The appeal was heard on 28.03.2016 and represented by the petitioner's Chartered Accountant Shri. Gopalakrishnan. There were three appeals relating to the Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2008-09, all of which were disposed of by common order dated 31.03.2016. The appeals filed before the CIT(A) related to the Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2008-09, of which the appeals for the first two Assessment Years was allowed in favour of the petitioner and the appeal for the Assessment Year 2008-09 was dismissed. 4. In this connection, it is respectfully submitted that the search and seizure operation was carried out on 21.08.2007 in the business and residential premises of the appellant at Kottayam and in the business premises of M/s Sunny Jacob Group of Jewellers at Kottay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hance of success in the appeal. The petitioner is unable to pay the unbearable demand. In such circumstances, if coercive action is taken, it would cause serious hardship, prejudice and mental agony to the petitioner. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner humbly prays that the Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Cochin, may be pleased to condone the delay of 1040 days in filing the appeal in time and accept the same on file and render justice. A separate petition praying the above relief is filed herewith and the same may be considered. All the facts stated above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief." 3.1 Thus, the Ld. AR pleaded to condone the delay and to decide the appeal on merits. 3.2 The Ld. DR strongly objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that there was an inordinate delay of 1038 days which was due to negligence of the assessee and it shall not be condoned. 4. We have gone carefully gone through the condonation petition accompanied by an affidavit and the facts narrated by the assessee. We find that the reasons advanced by the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly before this Tribunal is g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fact, he runs a serious risk. (6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 4.1 When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right for injustice being done because of non deliberate delay. No counter-affidavit was filed by the Revenue denying the submission made by the assessee. It is not the case of the Revenue that the appeal was not filed deliberately. Therefore, we have to prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. As observed by Apex Court, if the application of the assessee for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalise injustice on technical ground when the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. Therefore, this Tribunal is bound to remove the injustice by condoning the delay on technicalities. If the delay is not condoned, it would amount to legalising an illegal order which would result in unjust enrichmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which is of prime importance in the administration of justice, the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. In our opinion, this Judgment of the Madras High Court is also squarely applicable to the facts of this case. A similar view was taken by the Madras High Court in the case of Venkatadri Traders Ltd. v. CIT (2001) 168 CTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad). 4.4 The Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) (277 ITR 1) has condoned the delay of 180 days when the appeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment of the Apex Court. Furthermore, the Revenue has not filed any counter-affidavit opposing the application of the assessee for condonation of delay. The Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Sandhya Rani Sarkar vs. Smt. Sudha Rani Debi (AIR 1978 SC 537) held that non-filing of affidavit in opposition to an application for condonation of delay may be a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In this case, the Revenue has not filed any counter-affidavit opposing the application of the assessee, therefore, as held by the Apex Court, there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Supreme Cou....