TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 960
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner deposits with respondent no.2 an amount of rupees twenty-five lakhs latest by 23/3/2020. If any amount is determined to be in excess of the amount liable to be assessed to the petitioner under the scheme, same shall be refunded to the petitioner. The auction sale shall stand deferred for a period of eight weeks from the date of order." 3. It is evident from the above directions of the Hon'ble High Court that these applications i.e. 3 MAs and 3 condonation of delay petitions of the assessee have to be heard by the Tribunal as soon as possible and dispose of within 24.03.2020, subject to the assessee depositing with the Tax Recovery Officer an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs within 23.03.2020. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he will deposit the aforesaid amount within due date, however, requested us to hear these applications on the present date. 4. The ld. DR fairly conceded to the request of assessee. 5. After hearing both the parties and observing the directions of Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench, we proceed to hear all the applications of the assessee filed before us. From the facts on record, it is evident that all the three MAs are time barred and there ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t all served on the assessee and they were also not aware that any order was passed by the Tribunal till 30.12.2019. The ld. Counsel for the assessee could not give any convincing reasons for such an inordinate delay in filing these MAs irrespective of the fact that they were served with the order of Tribunal within due time. All the reasons recorded in the condonation of delay petition by the assessee are general in nature and they have referred to internal disputes between the members of assessee concerned. However, these reasons cannot categorically be said to be sufficient for not filing applications in due time. The law is very much supportive of a vigilant assessee and more so, for a bonafide one. In this case, the order of Tribunal was duly served on the assessee and they could not establish their bonafideness and the genuineness of such delay through any evidences on record filed before us. All while, the ld. Counsel has made oral submissions which in any way cannot be said to be genuine and bonafide. Even in the first round before the Tribunal, in the order pronounced on 01.02.2013 as evident from para 2 of the said order, no one had appeared either in person or on behalf ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2) of the Act has been condoned. We also find in the decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of TDK Electronics AG Vs. ACIT in ITA No.1810/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16, order dated 26.02.2020, wherein it has been held that power to condone the delay with the Tribunal can only be exercised if it is specifically provided in the Statute itself. As we have already examined so far as Income-tax Act is concerned and in respect of Tribunal it is with regard to appeals and cross-objections only, such power is given if the Tribunal is satisfied about the sufficiency of reasons about such delay as enshrined in clause (5) of section 253 of the Act. But so far as section 254(2) of the Act is concerned, there is no express power conferred on the Tribunal by the Legislature in the Statute where the Tribunal can condone the delay beyond the relevant period prescribed in the Statute therein. This view is fortified in the decision of Pune Bench Tribunal and the operative para is extracted as under:- "3. We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. Section 144C of the Act with the marginal note 'Reference to dispute resolution panel' provides through sub-section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay in filing appeal u/s. 260A of the Income-tax Act. Under these circumstances, the moot question is whether the DRP was justified in not condoning the delay of one day and consequently dismissing the objections raised by the assessee at the entry level without delving into their merits. 6. It is trite that filing of an appeal or an application under any Act is a right provided by the concerned statute. This right carries certain obligations including adhering to the time limit prescribed in the statute for filing of such an appeal or application. In the context of the Income-tax Act, 1961, an appeal can be filed before the CIT(A) within 30 days as prescribed u/s. 249(2) of the Act. In the same manner, an appeal can be filed before the Tribunal within 60 days as prescribed u/s. 253(3) of the Act and before the Hon'ble High Court within 120 days as per section 260A(2) of the Act. Apart from the appeals, an application u/s. 264 for revision can be filed by the assessee within one year as per section 264(3) of the Act. In the same manner, certain other time limits have also been outlined in the Act for moving applications etc. One of such instances is section 144C(2), which obligate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SC) in which it held that a High Court has no power to condone the delay in filing reference applications beyond the prescribed period. Similar issue once again came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 154 (Bom.) in which the Revenue sought condonation of delay by relying on the earlier Full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Velangkar Brothers (supra). Considering the later judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hongo India (P) Ld. and Another (supra), the Hon'ble Bombay High court held that the earlier view of the Full Bench in Velingkar Brothers (supra) was not a good law in view of the later judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is this judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. (supra) which has been chiefly relied by the DRP in not condoning the delay. It is the Finance Act, 2010 which has retrospectively inserted sub-section (2A) to section 260A permitting the filing of appeal belatedly on showing sufficient cause. Now with the aid of sub-section (2A) of section 260A, a High Court has also been empowered to entertain an appeal filed beyond the period prescrib....