TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 1494
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee. The contents of which are as under : "1. That the above Income Tax Appeal against the order dated 20 12.2012 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh was filed on 05.11.2014 which was late by 625 days. 2. That the appellate order was received on 20.12.2012 and as such the appeal was to be filed by 19.02.2013. 3. That Shri Chaman Lai Sharma, Advocate my local counsel had deposited the requisite fee of Rs. 10,000/- for filing the appeal in the Hon'ble I.T.A.T. on 30.01.2013. 4. That due to roof leakage in the Record Room of the office of Shri Chaman Lal Sharma, Advocate the files were shifted temporarily and my case file got tied up with the bundle of some other client and appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on this form as on 25.1.2013. Therefore, it was prayed that the delay be condoned. The affidavit of the Advocate with regard to the oversight in his office was also filed with the application for condonation of delay. 4. The learned D.R. vehemently opposed the condonation of delay. His argument was that the delay is inordinate and it is of 625 days and reasons given in the application for condonation of delay does not prove that there was sufficient cause before the assessee for not filing the appeal in time. 5. After hearing both the parties and perusing the application for condonation of delay, we observe that there is a delay of 625 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which is quite an inordinate delay. However, it is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the discretion has been given to the I.T.A.T. to condone the delay in cases where sufficient cause is proved by the defaulter. 8. In the case of Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil Vs. Shantaram Banurao Patil & Ors. (2002) 253 ITR 798 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : "In exercising discretion under s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone delay for sufficient cause in not preferring an appeal or other application within the period prescribed, Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor and cal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ife-purpose for the existence of the institution of Court". 11. Applying the above judicial pronouncements to the present case, we see that it is a fact that the delay is enormous. However, the reason has been stated in the form of an affidavit of the Advocate, which has not been rebutted by the Department and in case the delay is condoned, no prejudice is caused to the Department. In view of this, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 12. The assessee has raised four grounds of appeal. However, the learned counsel for the assessee preferred not to press ground Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, ground Nos.1 and 2 are dismissed as being not pressed. 13. Ground No.3 of the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Assessing Officer and filed Balance Sheet of M/s Mahajan Electronics for the preceding year and for this year. As per the learned CIT (Appeals), the assessee did not file accounts of the debtors and in the absence of any such information, he held that it cannot be said that the source of cash deposits was in fact, the money received from the debtors. In this way, the addition was sustained by the learned CIT (Appeals). 17. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidences. The contents of the application are as under : The abovementioned appeal is fixed for hearing on the 3rd of December. 2015. There is one addition of Rs. 17,00,000/- which is under challenge in Ground....