TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 2106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is observed that there has been a delay of 246 days in filing the subject appeals. Before we adjudicate on the grounds so raised in these appeals, it would be relevant to examine as to whether assessee has demonstrated any reasonable cause for the delay in filing the subject appeals. 3. The facts of the case are that both these appeals were filed with the Registry on 6.1.2014 stating the date of the communication of the ld CIT(A)'s order appealed against as 18.12.2013. Given that the date of the order of the ld CIT(A) against which the appeal was preferred was 21.02.2013 and the subject appeals were filed on 18.12.2013, the Assistant Registrar issued a letter on 7.1.2014 to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer requesting for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2014 mentioning that "Letter with Transaction No. ER52428881IN on 1.3.2013 of MBC Ajmer is settled on 18.1.2014 with the following information that as per reply received from Marine Lines S.O. a/u/r has been delivered on 5.3.2013 is enclosed for your information." 5. The communication received from the postal department dated 18.1.2014 regarding service and delivery of the order enclosed with the above reply from the Commissioner of the Income tax (Appeals) reads as under: "Department of Posts - India MANAGER SPEED POST SORTING HUB RAILWAY CAMPUS AJMER 305001. TEL : 0145-2621403 COMPLAINT -SETTLED REPLY No. 111117-03284 To DEEP CLEARK, AYKAR AYUKT (APPELAS), KENDRIYA RAJASVA BHAVAN, AJMER, 305001. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the assessee on 30.12.2013. Copy of application and letter from CIT(A) is enclosed herewith. On receiving the certified copy of the order the assessee immediately filed appeal before your honour on 06.01.2014. It is settled position of law that where the delay was bonafide and there is sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal the delay must be condone by the appellate authority. Under the similar facts and circumstances the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi 'E' Bench has held in the case of Oracle India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 that "condonation of delay - reasonable cause - delay of 1297 days in filing appeal being on account of lapse on the part of consultant and not being mala....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....014. It was submitted that given that the assessee has not received the order of the ld CIT(A) and the assessee came to know about the order only when the penalty notice was received, it reached out to the office of ld CIT(A) and requested for a copy of the appellate order. It was accordingly submitted that the same shows the bonafide on part of the assessee and reasonable cause beyond the control of the assessee and the delay should accordingly be condoned. 10. Per Contra Ld. D/R relied on the communication received from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and also on the letter dated 18.1.2014 of the Department of Posts stating clearly that the order of the CIT(A) was delivered to the assessee company on 5.3.2013 through Speed pos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondonation application, the assessee has stated that a copy of the order was received on 18.12.2013 and thereafter the certified copy was received on 30.12.2013. However, in the subsequent affidavit dated 20.10.2015, the Director of the assessee company is still maintaining the position that they have still not received the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Ajmer. In light of the above, it is clear that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 21.2.2013 has been served on the assessee on 5.3.2013 and the appeal has been filed on 6.1.2014. There is no further explanation submitted and reasonable cause shown by the assessee to explain the inordinate delay of 246 days of filing the subject appeals from date of service of the order on the assessee c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able cause which being beyond the control of the assessee, prevented it from filing the appeals in time before the Tribunal. The delay cannot be condoned merely because the assessee's case calls for sympathy or merely out of benevolence. For the exercise of discretion in condoning the delay, it must be established beyond the shadow of doubt that the assessee was diligent and was not guilty of negligence on its part. Sufficient cause as contemplated in the limitation provisions must be a cause which is beyond the control of the assessee. In the case on hand, the factual matrix, in our view, clearly establishes that the delay was due to the negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee, which could have been avoided by the assessee ....