TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 611
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainst the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.(SS).A.No.168/Mds/06 dated 09.05.2008 confirming the order of the CIT(A), Chennai sustaining the addition of Rs. 50 Lakhs as undisclosed income of the petitioner. 2. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay would reveal that the petitioner has primarily attempted to demonstrate lack of jurisdiction with regard to addition of Rs. 50 Lakhs as undisclosed income. We do not propose to get into the merits of the matter, but we intend to confine ourselves to see if there is "sufficient cause" for the delay of 5318 days in filing this Tax Case Appeal. 3. We shall now proceed to examine the averments made in the affidavit filed in suppor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner had placed emphasis on the above fact as leading them to file a review petition against the order of the Tribunal dated 09.05.2008. The petitioner filed a Crl.M.P.No.1160 of 2003 in respect of seized cash of Rs. 50 lakhs for return of the same. The department had issued warrant for requisition of assets under Section 132 A of the Act and filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.1205 of 2003. A common order dated 02.08.2004 was passed dismissing the petitioner's petition for release and return of the seized cash while allowing the department's petition under Section 132 A(1)(c) of the Act and ordered delivery of the cash to the Income Tax Department. The said order was confirmed by this Court vide order dated 22.11.2004 in Crl.R.C.No.14....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....06 for Block assessment periods from 01.04.1996 to 31.03.2002 and from 01.02.2002 to 18.02.2003 and the appeal filed against the said order, was also disposed of by the Tribunal, vide order dated 09.05.2008 and thus, there was no room for rectifying the order of the CIT(A), in the absence of any direction by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner once again filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the said appeal, vide order dated 21.12.2022. 5. It is against the above factual background that the petitioner was advised to challenge the impugned order dated 09.05.2008. Accordingly, the petitioner challenged the same, by way of Tax Case Appeal, with a delay of 5318 days. 6. The learned counsel for the pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal before the Tribunal. The complacency in the approach of the petitioner does not inspire confidence, but reflects apathy and lack of bona fide. Thus, we do not find any convincing reason set out in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition. 10. It is trite law that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, it is for the applicant to explain that there was "sufficient cause" for the delay. It had been consistently held that "sufficient cause" would mean that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part, but must have acted diligently and not remained inactive. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the following judgments of the Hon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orpn. Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee [AIR 1964 SC 1336] , Mata Din v. A. Narayanan [(1969) 2 SCC 770 ], Parimal v. Veena [(2011) 3 SCC 545] and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai [(2012) 5 SCC 157])." (b) Ajay Dabre v. Pyare Ram [2023 SCC Online SC 92]: "13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer while rejecting an application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows: "15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason wh....