TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (6) TMI 26
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Dadha Pharmaceuticals Limited. Pursuant to a search and seizure action conducted in the case of Sun Pharma Group of Industries at Mumbai and Baroda on 17.12.1988 consequential search was carried out in the business and residential premises of the Dadhas at Chennai as well as at Bangalore. Pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation approved by Gujarat and Madras High Court M/s Tamil Nadu Dadha Pharmaceuticals Limited was converted into M/s. Sun Pharma India Limited shares in the ratio of $:1 viz., for every 4 shares of M/s. Tamil Nadu Dhadha Pharmaceuticals Limited one share of M/s. Sun Pharma India Limited was allotted. The Assessing Officer on the basis of certain loose sheets of paper found at the time of search and on the basis of sus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal as the appellant has not been given any sufficient reasons or cause for the delay in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's appeal. Aggrieved against the same, the above appeal has been filed. 5. The questions of law raised in the appeal are as follows:- (1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in not condoning the delay of the appellant in filing the appeal before the Tribunal by not appreciating the bonafide reason (death of the appellants authorised representative) of the appellant for not filing the appeal in time? (2) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in disposing the appellant appeal on the grounds of limitation alone and not considering....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a delay of 558 days. From the contents of the affidavit and submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee, it is clear that the assessee has not explained the delay for such a long period and just took the ground of death of her counsel in January 2007, that too after the expiry of about one year from the last date of filing the appeal. Even the assessee failed to explain the sufficient cause or reason by giving necessary details as to how the delay from January 2007 to the date of filing the appeal has occurred. From the facts it seems that the asseessee was negligent by not taking the necessary step for filing the appeal within the time prescribed by the statute and thereby from the conduct of the assessee, it seems that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... above, it is clear that the appellant has not explained the cause of delay in filing the appeal, especially when authorised representative viz., representative who was given charge to file the appeal had died exactly one year after the last date of filing of the appeal. When that be so, it is pertinent to point out that actually the filing of the appeal was not done and even after the death of Ashok Kumbat, the assessee had taken more than six months in filing the present appeal. The assessee had neither given any particular or details in the affidavit as on which date the papers were handed over to the counsel for preparing the appeal and on what occasion the assessee enquired about the progress in preparing the appeal and filing th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eason, much less sufficient reason for accepting the delay caused by the appellant. In fact, no details have been given for the delay. Hence, this ruling will not help the contention of the appellant. 11. Next ruling relied upon by the appellant is the decision reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) in the case of COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION v. MST. KATIJI AND ORS., wherein the Honourable Supreme Court had explained the fact for sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In this case, considering the fact that the Government is the appellant and also the delay in filing the appeal is only four days, condoned the delay. It is specifically mentioned that the sufficient cause is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case, the Division Bench of this court has held that, ".................. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. Rules of limitation are based on principles of sound policy and principles of equity. Is a litigant liable to have a Damocles' sword hanging over his head indefinitely for a period to be determined at the whims and fancies of the opponent?" In that decision, this Court has held that the delay of 285 days in preferring the appeal could not be condoned. It was held that the condonation of delay was not justified on facts and evidence of the case. As rightly pointed out that the Rules of limitation are based on....