TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... these appeals, we proceed to dispose of the same by way of this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts relevant in appeal bearing ITA No. 03/NAG/2021 for the assessment year 2011-12 are stated hereunder. 3. The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal : - "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. The appellant prays that the delay be condoned and the first appellate authority be directed that the appeal should be taken up for hearing. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the request for condonation of the delay ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt." 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under:- The appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of builders. The search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') were conducted in the business premises of the appellant on 26.07.2016 and the search was concluded on 07.09.2016. The original return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year 2011-12 was filed on 09.08.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 1,87,21,310/-. Subsequently, based on the information gathered during the course of search and seizure operations, a notice u/s. 153A of the Act was issued to the appellant on 01.02.2017....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the course of search the assessee was surrendered an amount Rs. 16 Crore including the amount to cover up the error, mistake and omission was found in books of accounts during the course of assessment proceeding. The assessment was finalized by AO over and above to appeal against the assessment order, Thereafter AO levy the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) and 271AAB total amounting about Rs. 2.60 Crore by passing the penalty order which served on the assessee in last week of Feb 2019. For the same regular tax consultant advice not to pursue the appeal against the penalty order also. There after the assessee was allotted the work to Shri Chavan with direction to approach to C.A. Rajpal Singhai for opinion and pursue appeal if he deem fit. The dela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ified in not condoning the delay of 84 days in filing the appeals having regard to the explanation filed by the assessee before him. The explanation offered by the assessee for condoning the delay of 84 days in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) is that the delay had occurred on account of the change of counsel. No doubt the appellant had not furnished the details as to, who was the original counsel etc. But, it is also clear that the ld. CIT(A) had not doubted the veracity of the explanation offered by the appellant in support of condoning the delay of 84 days in filing the appeal before him. If the ld. CIT(A) wanted more details, he should have asked the appellant to furnish the same. Obviously, the ld. CIT(A) had chosen not to se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t he was under the mistaken impression that only the consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer on 31-12-2015 was required to be challenged and not the order dt. 10-03-2015 of the Revisional Authority, and that only after he consulted the Advocate, he realized the mistake and then challenged the order of the Revisional Authority. 22. The Tribunal took the view that the appellant ought to have explained why after receiving the order from the Revisional Authority he did not approach the Advocate, and held that he cannot say that only after he received the order of the Assessing Officer on 31-12-2015, he approached the Advocate. 23. In our opinion, this view is not reasonable for the reason that the assessee is an in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. It held that there is no presumption that delay in approaching the Court is always deliberate, and the words "sufficient cause" under section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It held that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned, but that alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him; and if the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. It also observed that if the delay is delib....