TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 1213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....avit 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 submission of appeal but due to ignorance on the part of his staff the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'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 an immediate reference: Ld. AR submitted that despite such robust systems in assessee-company,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs 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 taken thereupon also to file an appeal immediately but it was filed in the year 2019 i.e. after one and half years of the dea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined fro....