TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 06.03.2020 for the assessment year 2019-20. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: "1. That, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the learned CIT (A), NFAC, New Delhi, erred in dismissing the appeal. 1.1. That Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the adjustment made by the CPC, Bengaluru while processing the income tax return u/s 143(1) based on certain inputs from tax audit report of the assessee in respect of the disallowance of Rs. 19,84,415.00 on account of delay in making the payment towards the employee's contribution for Provident fund/ESI. 1.2. That Ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the fact that the impugned amount of Rs. 19,84,41500 were duly paid before the due ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rm the order of the CIT(Appeals), dated 29.09.2021. The Ld. AR submitted that Shri Bhuvneshwar Prasad Sahu, partner of the assessee firm received the aforesaid order from his accountant only as on 08.10.2023. The Ld. AR submitted that Shri Amitabh Paul, accountant had admitted that though the order of the CIT(Appeals) was received by him way back but it had skipped from his mind to bring the same to the notice of the partners of the assessee firm. Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that it was only when Shri Bhuwaneshwar Prasad Sahu (supra) had further brought the aforesaid order of the CIT(Appeals) on 29.09.2021 to the notice of his chartered account, viz. Shri Ajay Agrawal that he was informed that the appeal of the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....am unable to persuade myself to subscribe to the same. I, say so, for the reason that the delay in filing of the present appeal can by no means be held to be justified for the reason that partners of the assessee firm had remained unaware about the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) dated 29.09.2021 which was dropped in the email account of his accountant, viz. Shri Amitabh Paul. As the reason given by the assessee firm regarding the inordinate delay involved in filing of the present appeal does not inspire any confidence, and in fact reveals a lackadaisical conduct of the partners of the assessee firm, therefore, the same cannot be summarily accepted on the very face of it. Considering the callous and lackadaisical conduct of the partners of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the other party. The delay in filing of an appeal cannot be condoned in a mechanical or a routine manner since that would undoubtedly jeopardize the legislative intent behind Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 11. I may herein observe that in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Administrator, Howrah 1972 AIR SC 749, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, particularly when there is no motive behind the delay. The expression "sufficient cause" will always have relevancy to reasonableness. The action which can be condoned by the court should fall within the realm of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. However, as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the delay involved in preferring of the captioned appeal, I decline to condone the delay of 690 days and, thus, without adverting to the merits of the case dismiss the captioned appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation. 14. Apropos the reliance placed by the Ld. AR on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others (supra), the same being distinguishable on facts as against those involved in the captioned appeal before me, thus, would not assist its case. The Hon'ble Apex Court, stressing upon considering of a "sufficient cause" by the Courts, while deciding as to whether the delay involved in the filing of the appeal merits to be condoned, had observed that the s....