TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 271
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th reference to the law relating to limitation. This aspect has been rightly noted by the Registry and no delay has been noted. As such, the IA does not require consideration and stands closed, as the appeal is noted as filed 'within time'. 2. This appeal is at the instance of the Assessee, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 05.11.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur in MA No.41/RPR/2019 (filed by the Assessee for restoration of the appeal with a petition to condone delay of '1924' days). The MA for restoration was dismissed holding that the delay has not been explained, nor has the chronology of events pertaining to such inordinate delay has been given by way of any affidavit. 3. The case put up by the Appellant/Assessee is that, the Assessee is a Public Sector Undertaking and a subsidiary of the Coal India Limited, which is engaged in the development of mines, mining activities and trading of coal. The return for the assessment year 2007-08 was filed on 31.10.2007, which came to be revised and enhanced as per the revised return filed later. The Assessing Authority proceeded with further s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missed as per Annexure A/1 order dated 05.11.2019, correctness of which is put to challenge. 6. Shri S. Rajeswara Rao, the learned counsel for the Appellant/Assessee was required to demonstrate the "substantial question of law" involved, so as to entertain the appeal preferred before this Court, particularly, since the order under challenge (Annexure A/1) has been passed on a factual aspect as to the inordinate delay in filing the MA and not on merits. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the appeal merely based on the verdict of the Apex Court in ONGC (supra) and that in view of subsequent ruling of the Apex Court in Electronics Corporation of India Limited (supra), the appeal had to be restored. 7. Smt. Naushina Afrin Ali, the learned standing counsel representing the Respondent-Revenue submits that there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the appeal preferred by the Assessee. The dismissal of the appeals filed by the Assessee and the Revenue as per Annexure A/6 order passed on 03.06.2010 was based on the law that prevailed as on that date. However, in view of subsequent ruling rendered by the Apex Court and by virtue of the liberty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it is seen that the Appellant/Assessee was very much represented through their counsel, but the stand of the Appellant/Assessee was something else, who virtually opposed the relief sought for by the Revenue in the MA, contending that the Apex Court decision in Electronics Corporation of India Limited (supra) was not applicable to the case. This is discernible from paragraph-2 of Annexure A/7 order, which is reproduced below for easy reference: "2. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee Ms. Sushamu Basu and Mr. Subhasis De read out the relevant portions from page 3 of the Supreme Court and mentioned that the assessee's case falls under exceptions and therefore, the said apex court decision in the case of ECIL (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case. Accordingly, she argued with the prayer that the appeal of the revenue should be dismissed." The Tribunal held in paragraph-3 that the learned counsel for the Assessee failed to demonstrate that their case was falling under exceptions to avoid retrospective operation of the judgments mentioned therein and it was accordingly, that the MA filed by the Revenue was allowed as per the said order. 12. This cle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....47 has laid down the principles involved and the approach needed while considering the application of delay, the relevant portion is as under: "15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are : ....................... vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second alls for a liberal delineation. ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vig....