TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 654
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act', for short] was first issued. Subsequently, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued. Ultimately, the respondent had disallowed Rs. 37,23,478/- inter alia for the reason that the appellant had not produced sufficient information and/or the information produced by the appellant is not acceptable. When the appellant submitted the vouchers for the said amount claimed by the appellant, the respondent rejected the same assigning a reason that the vouchers are self made vouchers and/or are defective in nature. The total demand payable by the appellant was determined at Rs. 15,48,816/-. The computation of the same has been reflected in the assessment order, dated 30.12.2010, passed by the respondent. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in ITA.no.0782/CC-2,Vizag/CIT(A)- I/20-11. However, the said appeal was dismissed confirming the order of the respondent. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ['Tribunal', for short] in ITA.no.449/Viz/2017 with a delay of 1632 days. The appellant also filed an application, supported by an affidavit, for condonation of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a hospital. He underwent a critical surgery. The fractures of the bones of the right arm were corrected by fixing temporary implants. He was discharged from the hospital, on 03.09.2012. He was advised to take bed rest for six months. Due to non availability of the above two key personnel, who are in-charge of the matters relating to the appellant company, the order, which was passed on 28.11.2012, went un-noticed. Later, in the month of June, 2017, when the appellant received a call from the IT department on the outstanding arrears resulting from the impugned assessment, the relevant file with the CIT(A) order was traced. Thereafter, the present appeal was filed before the Tribunal, on 27.07.2017, without causing any further delay. The delay of 1635 days had occasioned in filing the appeal before the Tribunal for the aforestated reasons. Be it noted that no counter was filed by the respondent before the Tribunal. However, the departmental representative opposed for condonation of the extra ordinary delay. The grounds urged in this appeal and the contentions raised by the appellant, in brief, are as follows: The order of the Tribunal is contrary to the facts & circu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the medical certificates filed by the assessee and that the assessee has not explained the extraordinary delay of 1635 days by explaining the reasons and that the assessee failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. During the 1635 days of period, the appellant carried on its business without any interruptions. Such a long delay cannot be viewed leniently. The reasons offered for the delay are not rational and justifiable.' Before proceeding further, it is apt to refer to the following settled legal position. "The statutory provision mandates that while considering the applications for condonation of delay, the applicants are required to show sufficient cause for condonation of such delay. Condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. The words 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive liberation construction so as to achieve substantial justice. However, while condoning the delay, the Court should not forget the opposite party altogether. A liberal approach is to be adopted on considering the application for condonation of delay on the ground of sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Lim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ures of the bones of the right arm were corrected by fixing temporary implants. He was discharged from the hospital, on 03.09.2012. He was advised to take bed rest for six months. Due to non availability of the above two key personnel, who are in-charge of the matters relating to the appellant company, the order, which was passed on 28.11.2012, went un-noticed. Later, in the month of June, 2017, when the appellant received a call from the IT department on the outstanding arrears resulting from the impugned assessment, the relevant file with the CIT(A) order was traced. Thereafter, the present appeal was filed before the Tribunal, on 27.07.2017, without causing any further delay. The delay of 1635 days had occasioned in filing the appeal before the Tribunal for the aforestated reasons.' Before the Tribunal, no counter is filed by the revenue. The principal submission of the appellant is that sufficient cause was shown for condonation of the delay and that the appellant has got fair chance of success in the appeal and that in that view of the matter, refusal of condonation of delay resulted in a meritorious matter being thrown out at a very threshold and justice is denied. W....