TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 433
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment year 2017-13, 1 filed the return of income originally on 8.9.2012 admitting an income of Rs. 5,40,570/- which is inclusive of income from business of Rs. 4,03,539/-. The case was re-opened by issued of a notice u/s 148 of the 1.T.Act on 29.3.2019. In response to the said notice, I filed the return of income admitting the same income as was admitted in the return of income filed originally. The Assessing officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act vide order dated 21.12.2019. While doing so, the Assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 9,68,184/ on the ground that the sale consideration received on sale of penny stock scrip of VMS Industries Liinited represents income from other sources. While coming to such conclusion, the Assessing officer did not consider the fact that the trading done was only speculation and the actual amount received was only Rs. 43,832/- and that the entire sale consideration cannot be added. Aggrieved with the order of assessment, I filed an appeal before the learned CIT (Appeals) on 21.12.2019. The said appeal was disposed vide order dated 13.09.2022. The order was uploaded in the Income-tax portal and was not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ally and that, the assessee has no knowledge of such a procedure to verify the Portal. Further, his father-in-law Sri Nanda Kishore Darak was admitted on Kulkarni Endo Surgery Institute and Reconstructive Urology Centre, Pune for medical treat and since he has no male assistance, the assessee constrained to proceed to Pune to assist his father-in-law and, therefore, he was not accessible locally to the office of the Chartered Accountant. He submitted that, due to the above circumstances, he could not concentrate in income tax matters and the matter has come to surface when the Income Tax Department passed penalty order dated 20.02.0224 u/sec.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, the assessee has approached his Chartered Accountant and filed the present appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 539 days. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal is neither willful nor wanton, but, due to the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and there was a 'sufficient cause' for the delay. He, therefore, submitted that, the delay of 539 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal may please be condoned in the interest of justice.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Courts to do substantial justice and apply law in a meaningful manner, which subserves the ends of justice. The Courts further noted that, in adhering the liberal approach in condoning the delay for 'sufficient cause' ordinary litigant does not stand benefit by lodging an appeal late and it is not necessary to explain every day's delay in filing the appeal and since, sometimes refused to condone the delay, result in thrown out a meritorious matter. Therefore, it is, in the interest of justice that, cause of substantial justice should be allowed to prevail upon technical consideration and if the delay is not deliberate, it should be condoned. Notwithstanding the above, howsoever, liberal approach is adopted in condoning the delay, existence of 'sufficient cause' for not filing the appeal in time, is a condition precedent for exercising the discretionary power of the Court to condone the delay. The phrases 'liberal approach', 'justice-oriented approach' and cause for the advancement of 'substantial justice' cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow stale matters or as a matter-of-fact dead matter to be revived and re-opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal before the Tribunal could not be filed within the time, is not acceptable. Further, in our considered view, the 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act is, a cause that prevents an appellant from filing the appeal or application within the prescribed time limit and is beyond their control and not due to negligent or inaction. In the present case, going by the facts available on record, it is purely on account of inaction or negligence of the assessee appeal could not be filed within the time allowed under the Act and this fact is further strengthened by the conduct of the assessee before the authorities below where the assessee did not appeared before the learned CIT(A) when the case was listed for hearing. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the reasons given by the assessee for the delay in filling of the appeal, does not come under 'sufficient cause' and for this reason, the delay of 539 days in filing appeal cannot be condoned. 9. At this stage, it is relevant to consider the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pathapati Subbareddy (died) reptd. by his L.Rs & Ors. vs., The Special Deputy Collector-(LA) in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s as well as equi-benches of this Court have consistently followed these principles and have either allowed or declined to condone the delay in filing such applications. Thus, it is the requirement of law that these applications cannot be allowed as a matter of right and even in a routine manner. An applicant must essentially satisfy the above stated ingredients; then alone the Court would be inclined to condone the delay in the filing of such applications." 10. In the present case, admittedly, although, the assessee has filed his return of income for the year under consideration admitting net taxable income of Rs. 5,40,565/-, but, failed to furnish information with respect to trading in shares of penny stock scrip of M/s. VMS Industries Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 9,68,184/- vide scrip no.533427 during the financial year relevant to assessment year 2012-2023 under consideration. Further, the assessee could not explain the case with relevant evidences to prove that, the sum of Rs. 9,68,184/- is not net sale consideration on sale of penny stock scrip of M/s. VMS Industries Ltd., before the Assessing Officer which is evident from the observation of the Assessing Officer, has treated ....