TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 911
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s for this purpose alone no further adjournment can be granted. Even otherwise adjournment is not a right of the party but is discretion of the court therefore application for seeking adjournment stands rejected. 3. Ld. DR present in the court is ready with the arguments, therefore I decided to proceed with the hearing of the appeal ex-parte. 4. Since there is a delay in filing the present appeal of 1370 days and in this regard assessee has only mentioned that after the decision of the appeal by Ld. CIT(A), the Tax consultant of the assessee had not advised any remedial action against the said order passed u/s 250 of the Act, therefore appeal was not filed. 5. To my mind this cannot be a reason for condoning the delay of 1370 days. After having examine the issue in the light of the facts and the circumstances of the case and also in view of the terms of section 5 of the Limitation Act, whereby discretion is vested in the Court/Appellate Authority to admit an appeal or an application, after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation, if the appellant shows 'sufficient cause' for not preferring the application within the prescribed time. The expression 'suffic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... can hardly claim equity in justice particularly faced with the statutory provisions of Section 5. In construing enactments which provide period of limitation for institution of proceedings, the purpose is to intimate people that after lapse of certain time from a certain event, a proceeding will not be entertained where a strict grammatical construction is normally the safe guide. 8 The hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan V. M. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998 SC 3222 held as under:- "11. Rules of limitation are meant to see that parties do not resort dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for laundering the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The idea is that every legal remedy m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... received the order on February 5, 1954, as aforesaid. It further appears from a letter dated April 9, 1954, from the Assistant Registrar of the Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, that the appeals were received by him on April 7, 1954, that is to say, one day beyond the period of limitation. In view of sub-rule (2) of rule 7, which provides that a memorandum of appeal, sent by post, shall be deemed to have been presented to the Registrar or to the off icer authorised by the Registrar, on the day on which it is received in the off ice of the Tribunal at Bombay, it is clear that the appeals were received by the Registrar out of time. We have discussed the general mandatory aspect of the provisions of the Act and the rules thereunder in our decision in Govinda Chowdhury V. Commissioner of Income-tax referred to above............Thus, even the delay of one day was not condoned by the Hon'ble Orissa High Court. 13 Moreover, in cases where the assessee has not come up clean and the reasons given are not based on facts, the delay cannot be condoned merely because of sympathy. It was so decided in the case of Mewa Ram (Deceased by L. Rs) &Ors. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 45.The Hon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... delay. The Appellate Authority has to examine whether the sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant for condoning the delay and whether such cause is acceptable or not. Even though substantial justice should not be defeated by technicalities but that does not mean that any plea without any possible or acceptable basis and even without hearing, resemblance or rationality has to be accepted and delay has to be accepted and condoned which shall be against the very spirit of law. The time prescribed for filing the appeal will become meaningless in such an event. 16. Perusal of the facts shows that the assessee in the present case appears to be negligent and has not taken appropriate steps to peruse the remedy till 1370 days and thus did not take necessary action in filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Our aforesaid view is that in absence of a sufficient/reasonable cause leading to the delay in filing of an appeal, the same does not merit to be condoned. 17 Further from the facts emanating from the case, it is coming out clearly that the overall approach of the assessee, throughout has been of prolonging, stretching the matter just to keep the appeal proceedings ....