TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1847
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e filed return of income declaring a loss of Rs. 3,26,01,780/-. The AO passed ex-parte assessment order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "Act"). The AO noted that the assessee has not furnished any details, copies of Audited balance sheets and Audit reports etc. therefore, returned loss is not verifiable. Therefore, returned loss of Rs. 3,26,01,780/- was disallowed and the income was taken as NIL. The assessee moved an application under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules in appeal before Ld.CIT(A) and also filed copies of the Audit Report and balance sheet. It was explained that due to acute financial constraints and staff shortage, the assessee was not able to conduct its normal business activities. Therefore, no notice has been recei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of delay. It is stated that authorization to file the appeal has been granted by Ld.CIT on 07.06.2016. Due to time barring scrutiny assessment, in the month of March 2016, the above impugned order was overlooked and got barred by limitation of time for filing before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. DR referred to the application of condonation of delay and submitted that due to time barring scrutiny assessment, the impugned order was overlooked, therefore, liberal view may be adopted. Ld. DR submitted that delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly opposed the request for condonation of delay by the Department and submitted that it is a case of negligence on the part of the Department in ov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....explanation for not applying for certified copy of the judgment on September 11, 2009, or at least within a reasonable time. The fact remains that the certified copy was applied for only on January 8, 2010, i.e., after a period of nearly four months. Neither the Department nor the person in-charge had filed an explanation for not applying for the certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit clearly showed that there was delay at every stage and there was no explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. The Department or the person concerned had not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to the court by taking appropriate steps. The persons concerned were well aware or conversant with the is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government Departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. The law of limitation binds everybody including the Government." 7. ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of ACIT vs Vimal Mehra [2012] 28 taxmann.com 210 (Delhi) has held as under:- "Delay of 557 days in filing appeal by revenue taking ground of oversight and pressure of workload is found to be neither reasonable nor sufficient ground and, therefore, condonation of such delay is rightfully denied. 8. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Ram Mohan Kabra [2002] 257 ITR 773 has held as under:- "Where the Legislature spells out a period of limitation....