TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 1325
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 90% of export incentive and the assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 27.03.2002, were the ld. Assessing Officer calculated deduction u/s.80HHC as Nil fallowing three limbs of provisions. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by order dated 05.12.2002 observed that netting should not be done and confirmed the exclusion of 90% additional sale consideration. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer gave effect to the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in consequential order dated 18.02.2003 and calculated deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act at ;24,97,935/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 05.12..2002 filed appeal to Tribunal. 5. The assessee on the issue of additional sale consideration preferred an appeal and was adjudicated by the Tribunal in ITA Nos.352 to 356/2003, order dated 9.02.2004 and granted relief to the assessee. The Assessing Officer passed consequential order dated 31.03.2004 to give relief as per ITAT order and allowed further deduction u/sec.80HHC amounting to ;35,54,543/- an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat in fact while giving effect to the order of the Appellate Tribunal rendered while disposing off the appeal preferred by the department for the very same Assessment Year, the Assessing Officer on 31-3-2004 had granted the deduction u/s. 80 HHC of the Act to the extent of _60,52,478/-. I state that the mistake in the impugned order being apparent from the record it was professionally advised to file a petition for rectification in terms of Section 154 of the Act and accordingly. a petition was filed before the Assessing Officer pointing out the mistake committed on 23-3-2007. However, the Assessing Officer while considering the rectification petition had passed an order on 27-9-2007 received on 3-10-2007 and wherein it was held that the rectification as prayed for was not maintainable for the reasons stated therein. I state that immediately after taking professional advice the present appeal was filed against the impugned order belatedly by 309 days and further it is stated that the filing of the appeal against the impugned order dated 31-10-2006 was suggested professionally in view of the fact of the scope of the appeal against the rectification order dated 27-9-2007 was narr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Court in Rankak & Others v, Rewa Coal, Fields Ltd AIR 1962 SC 361, Madhu Dadha v. ACIT (Mad) 317 ITR 458. In this case the appellant has not discharged this onus either. To conclude the appellant also fails the test that made it obligatory on the appellant to have acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecuting of his appeal as has been held in Brij Inder Singh v. Kanshi Ram AIR 1917 PC 156 and M. Loganathan v. CIT (Mad) 302 ITR 139. On the basis of the foregoing I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case for condonation of delay of 309 days of the appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relied on the judicial decisions and dismissed the condonation petition. 7. Before us, the ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee reiterated his submissions made before the Assessing Officer and also the submissions made before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the issue of delay in filing the appeal and on merits. The ld. Authorised Representative submitted that Rectification 154 petition filed by the assessee was dismissed by order dated 27.09.2007. On the issue of submission of Authorised Representativ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... other side. The expression "sufficient cause" will always have relevancy to reasonableness. The actions which can be condoned by the Court should fall within the realm of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. It is neither expected nor can it be a normal conduct of a public servant or a litigant that they would keep the files unmoved, unprocessed for months together on their tables. How the power of condonation of delay is to be exercised, has been explained by the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others- 167 ITR 471 (SC) as under:- ( Pages 472 ). " The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits ". The expression "sufficient cause " employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that the court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in t....