TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 510
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....letion of the project in Jan 2013. 2. Not allowing the full claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act 1961 in accordance with law, of the entire construction cost of the New house of Rs. 2,58,13,721/- and the second house purchased on 27.11.2013 for Rs. 99,35,550/-being restricted to Rs. 2,01,14,431/- (Rs. 82,70,277/- + Rs. 1,18,44,154/-) so as to render the Long Term Capital Gains to Rs. NIL. 3. At the outset, it is intimated by the Registry that the appeal of the assessee is delayed by 790 days. In this regard a written application alongwith relevant affidavits have been submitted with a request to condone the delay. In the oral and written submissions made, the ld.AR has contented that the delay was unintentional and bonafide. It is stated that the assessee, a Management Consultant, was earlier settled in Mumbai and got relocated to Bengaluru. The assessment order for the year was passed by the AO at Mumbai u/s 143(3) of the Act by disallowing the entire claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act. The work related to the attending of the appeal proceedings was handed over to Mumbai based C.A. M/s Kastury & Talati. The assessee was very well represented before the ld.CIT(A) fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... commonly appears in the provisions of order 22 Rule 9 (2), CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court while allowing such application has to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for want of bona fides of an inaction or negligence which would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5. "Sufficient cause" is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court for condoning the delay. Courts have time and again held that when mandatory provision is not complied with and that delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the Court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone. The law of Limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim "'Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium" (It is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). 5.1 To understand the scope of the term "sufficient cause" in matters of delay, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj and Ors vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2014 SC 746 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the sufficient cause does not include the negligent manner in which the applicant had acted or/ and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for a legislatively fixed period of time. 5.4 In the case of State of West Bengal vs. Administrator, Howrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:- ...........parties must act bonafidely, expeditiously and with due care. A casual or a negligent litigant who has acted with utter irresponsible attitude, cannot claim the condonation of delay in law when the right has accrued to the other side. The expression "sufficient cause" will always have relevancy to reasonableness. The actions which can be condoned by the Court should fall within the realm of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. It is neither expected nor can it be a normal conduct of a public servant or a litigant that they would keep the files unmoved, unprocessed for months together on their tables. 5.5 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision in the case Surinder Kumar Boveja Vs. CWT 287 ITR 52 has categorically held that delays cannot be routinely excused. In this decision, the Hon'ble High Court has further held as under: "Where the delay is prolonged and the assessee is not able to show that the delay had occurred in spite of exercise of due attention a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at when mandatory provision is not complied with and that delay is not properly satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone. In the case of Jagdish Lal and Others V.s State of Haryana (1996) 6 SCC 267 wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble court that the appellant kept on sleeping for the period and suddenly decided to file the appeal. Again Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan & Others, in the case of M/s. Binami Cement Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, (S.B. (sales Tax) Revision Petition No.556/2011) decided that delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned for the reason that appellant failed to explain the specifically the delay for the particular period. It has been held that the courts, including the Supreme Court, no doubt have recommended liberal approach in considering applications for condonation of delay, yet the concepts such as liberal approach, justice oriented approach and substantial justice cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation especially when on facts the authority before which application under section 5 of Limitation Act is filed, finds no justification for the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sidered view that the delay in filing of the appeal cannot be condoned in absence of any justifiable reason. Though it is well accepted that no appellant derives any benefit by filing a delayed appeal, however the same should not be used as a tool, or an excuse to avoid and prolong and thus delay further consequent proceedings from the Department. Accordingly, in this case, the assessee has not been able to explain the reason for delay for the entire period and has merely taken a general plea based on general reasons. 6.3 The delay is undoubtedly substantial although the assessee has claimed that it was mainly on account of wrong advise of his CA who did not give correct advise at the relevant point of time. As a result, the assessee who was banking upon the CA remained unaware of filing of appeal. The assessee has also submitted an affidavit of the concerned CA who was also presented before us during appeal. Though we do not find any reasons to conclude that the delay was malafide, the fact remains that the assessee being an individual taxpayer should have been more conscious of his statutory obligations knowing fully well the implication thereof. It is further noticed from the a....