TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 1213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccompanied by assessee's affidavit as well as a supportive affidavit of previous counsel (Shri Ashwini Rinwa, Advocate) in both matters. The contents of these documents are identical in both appeals. Therefore, we are re-producing below the assessee's condonation-application and previous counsel's affidavit as filed in first appeal being ITA No. 247/Ind/2023 of AY 2010-11: 3. Ld. AR firstly carried us to the above condonation-application according to which the assessee handed over the impugned orders to his previous counsel for filing appeals before ITAT but there was a lapse on the part of previous counsel in not only filing appeals. Ld. AR submitted that the previous counsel did not even make appearances before CIT (A) in first appeals which has led to passing of ex-parte orders by CIT (A). Then, Ld. AR carried us to the above affidavit of previous counsel Mr. Ashwini Rinwa, advocate to demonstrate that in Para 2 of affidavit, the counsel has averred that he was dealing assessee's income-tax affairs and Para 4, he has further averred that the impugned order was handed over to him for filing appeal before ITAT; that he gave order to office staff for preparation and submiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....counsel is not a novice, he is a well experience professional. Referring to Ld. AR's assertion, he submitted that the previous counsel was regularly handling assessee's matters uptill the year 2020. In such a situation, how can it be accepted that the present matters which required filing of appeals in the year 2016/ 2017 could not be taken care of by counsel for several years? (iii) He submitted that the assessee has pushed the delay on previous counsel and the previous counsel has pushed on his "unnamed" staff who has left service. He submitted that the explanation offered is itself not credible. (iv) He submitted that the assessee is a company and not an individual. The assessee has all staff at its command to monitor and take care of even minute happening. He invited our attention to the bottom of first pages of impugned orders filed by assessee and showed that the staff of assessee has even noted the date of receipt of impugned orders by way of a seal according to which the impugned orders dated 31.12.2015 & 23.01.2017 were received on 20.01.2016/4:30 P.M. & 13.02.2017/3:15 P.M. respectively. The pages referred by Ld. DR are scanned and re-produced below for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt in the process of delay. As can be seen from Ld. DR's arguments that the assessee has filed appeals of other two years i.e. AY 2011-12 and 2013-14 on 07.09.2022 and even at that stage, had not taken care to enquire and see the status of present appeals. This clearly shows lethargic attitude of assessee. In Mani Mandir Sewa Nyas Samiti Ramghat Ayodhya Vs. CIT (2020) 119 taxmann.com 383 (SC) relied upon by Ld. DR, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt an identical situation, the relevant paragraphs of the order while emphasizing the crux are extracted below: "4. The prayer for condonation of delay is seriously opposed by learned counsel for the revenue. It is submitted that the delay is not of few days or months but is of more than four and half years. No explanation to the delay to justify its condonation has been given. If Late Padam Prakash Singh was managing the legal affairs of the assessee, then also there is nothing on record to show that he was not keeping well so as to take a decision for filing of appeal for the years together. He died in the month of November, 2017 whereas copy of the order was obtained on 10-3-2014. Even after the death of Manager, no steps were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stage and only continued with its negligent or lethargic attitude. Therefore, the assessee is also a contributor in causing delay in filing. In recent judgement dated 21.09.2023 in Royal Stiches (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2023) 156 taxmann.com 361 (Madras HC) relied upon by Ld. DR, the Hon'ble High Court held thus: "5. We are not convinced with the reasons adduced in the affidavits filed in support of these petitions for condoning the inordinate delay of 1072 days. It is trite law that where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation, the petitioner has to explain the Court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court within limitation. In this connection, reference may be made to the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (a) Basawaraj Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81: "9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature." 14. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court did not commit any mistake in dismissing the delay condonation application of the present appellant.' Thus, it is crystal clear from the above legal proposition that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case and that, the expression 'sufficient cause' cannot be liberally interpreted, if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. In the present case, the petitioner/appellant has not given 'sufficient cause' for condoning the huge delay of 1072 days in filing the appeals. 6. It is also to be pointed out that the appeals were filed along with condone delay petitions in the year 2012 itself. By order dated 14-9-2012, notice was ordered to the respondent in the condone delay petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the penalty proceedings U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was also passed as ex-party on 08/05/2023 by Ld CIT(A), NFAC. Now our all cases are taken care of by our new counsel. Both the appeal have been decided as Ex-party. The result mistake of the counsel should not be borne by the appellant company and by principal of natural justice an opportunity of hearing may be provided to the appellant company. A chalan No 03624 of Rs. 500/- as fee paid on 28/06/2023 is submitted herewith. Further, the appellant company is relied upon the following judgements: a) Hon. Supreme Court in case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi (SC) :(1979) 118 ITR 0507 it was held that "legal advice tendered by a professional and litigant acting upon it one way or other could be sufficient cause to seek condonation of delay and coupled with other circumstances and factors for applying liberal principles and then said delay can be condoned" b) Hon. High Court, Bombay in case of Vijay Vishin Meghani v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax ((2017) 251 TAXMANN 270) were the Hon. High Court has condone the delay in filing of appeal of 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edge. Date & Place: at Bhopal Onlin Deponent Document 2 सतà¥à¤¯à¤®à¥‡à¤µ जयते GOVERNMENT OF INDIA I.T.N.S.: 55 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 1, BHOPAL (M.P.) DATE OF ORDER: 31/12/2015 APPEAL No.: CIT (A)-I/BPL/IT-108/13-14 Instituted on 17.04.2013 from the order of the ACIT-1(2), Bhopal 1. PAN 2. Assessment Years 3. Name and Address I 4. Income assessed : 5. Tax/Penalty levied : 6. Section of the order : 7. Date (s) of hearing 8. Present for hearing AABCC6163G 2010-11 CI Builders Pvt. Ltd., 182-Zone-I, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal Rs. 1,39,52,840/- Rs. 60,46,150/- U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 9. Present for department: As per order sheet None None APPELLATE ORDER AND GROUNDS OF DECISION This appeal has been filed against assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 18.03.2013 for A.Y. 2010-11 passed by ACIT-1(2) Bhopal. 2. The appellant has taken following grounds of appeal which are as under: "1. That the addition of Rs. 59,23,003/- for low Net-Profit be hel....