2025 (6) TMI 134

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....delayed by 893 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an affidavit of the Chairman of the society, wherein it is submitted that the copy of the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) was served on 22/04/2022 through email, and therefore, the appeal was required to be filed before the Tribunal on or before 21/06/2022. However, the same was filed on 30/11/2024 after a delay of 893 days. In the affidavit, it has been submitted that there is no full-time accountant to look after the tax and litigation matters of the assessee, and therefore, the delay was not intentional, and the late filing of the appeal was due to reasons totally beyond its control. Accordingly, the assessee has prayed for a lenient view and for condonation o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to admit the appeal preferred after the expiry of time is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is shown based upon various factors such as negligence, failure to exercise due diligence, etc. After considering a host of decisions on this subject, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-26 of its judgment observed as follows: - "26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that: (i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; (ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....phs, it is evident that the assessee has not even proved the existence of sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the limitation period, and the inordinate delay of 893 days appears to be completely due to negligence and want of due diligence on the part of the assessee. We find that even after the dismissal of its appeal by the learned CIT(A) on the grounds of delay and receipt of the impugned order dated 22/05/2022 on the same date, the assessee appears to have not taken any serious steps for avoiding any delay in filing the further appeal before the Tribunal. At this stage, it is also pertinent to note that its appeal before the learned CIT(A) was delayed by only 66 days, however, the present appeal is delayed by as much as....