TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 635
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....01.2015 2003-04 ITA No.300/RPR/2016 23.01.2015 2005-06 ITA No.301/RPR/2016 23.01.2015 2006-07 2. At the outset, it is observed that all these seven appeals were filed with certain delay, for which, the Ld.AR of the assessee was directed to explain the reasons for delay, so that the admissibility of these appeals could be decided according to the provisions of sec.253(3) & (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), which read as under: (3) Every appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be filed within sixty days of the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the assessee or to the 73a[Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner, as the case may be : [Provided that in respect of any appeal under clause (b) of sub-section (1), this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words "sixty days", the words "thirty days" had been substituted.] (5) The Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit the filing of a memorandum of cross-objections after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in sub-section (3) or sub-section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h submissions, the Ld.AR of the assessee requested that since, the delay was on account of mistake on the part of earlier Counsels, who has advised the assessee not to file the appeals before the ITAT. Therefore, the assessee should not be punished for the same, it makes sufficient cause for the assessee who had filed appeals before the ITAT, immediately when he was advised by the subsequent Counsel that by this available remedy, he may get justice from ITAT, by filing appeals before the ITAT. It was thus the prayer of the Ld AR that the assessee may please be granted the relief of admission of these appeals for which assessee was not to be treated at default when he/she was dependent on the counsel who had not extended a correct advice to the assessee. 5. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR strongly opposed the contentions of the assessee with regard to the delay in filing of appeals. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the delay in all these appeals were inordinate delay, and therefore, having no justifiable reasons for delay, the same should be dismissed on account of condonation of delay itself. It was also the submission of the Ld. Sr. DR that negligence on the part of the assessee is app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal, the time of limitation was already surpassed. This contention of the assessee cannot be acceded to for the reason that the assessees were unable to substantiate its contention by way of producing or submitting any information like who was the earlier Counsel, copy of any written opinion, on whose opinion, assessees have not filed the appeals in time and also no material supporting evidence could be placed on record in support of this contentions of the assessee. Therefore, in our considered opinion, there was no sufficient cause, whereby, the assessee was prevented to file the appeals in time, it was only the assessee who has not acted diligently or remain inactive. As, we are not satisfied with the reasons unsupported with any cogent evidence by the assessees, in all the aforesaid appeals, condonation of delay cannot be granted. With regard to the assessee's contention that their arguments pertaining to delay in filing of the appeals is covered by the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co Ltd v. Nirmala Devi & Ors. (supra), is not acceptable and cannot support the contentions of the assessee so far as the facts of the cases, in which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tribunal. I find no substance in the claim of the assessee that the delay involved in filing of the present appeals was due to bonafide reasons, and the same does not smack of any lackadaisical conduct on his part. In the totality of the facts leading to the delay in filing of the present appeals r.w the conduct of the assessee appellant before the lower authorities, I would mince no words in observing that the same does not merit acceptance. In fact, if I condone the inordinate delay involved in the present cases where the assessee had consistently delayed filing of appeals even before the CIT(Appeals), and also not participated in the assessment proceedings, then, it would send a wrong message and would lay down a wrong precedent for the times to come. I am of a strong conviction that as the assessee had on account of his callous conduct and a habitual lackadaisical approach delayed the filing of the present appeals by a substantial period of 1563 days, therefore, the applications filed by him seeking condonation of the delay therein involved does not merit acceptance and are liable to be rejected at the threshold. 5. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e distinction was drawn between normal delay and inordinate delay. It was held as under: "A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach, but in the latter case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach." In the present case, the delay of 1563 days cannot be simply condoned on the basis of the unsubstantiated claim of the assessee that the same had occasioned on account of failure on the part of his regular chartered accountant in properly guiding him as regards filing of the appeals before the Tribunal. In fact, the conduct of the assessee before the lower appellate authority and the Assessing Officer clearly evidences his disregard for the process of law, which, I find, he had carried forward before me by preferring the appeal beyond a period of 1563 days after the lapse of the stipulated time period. 8. Also, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chotelal Vs. Rewa Co....