Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2024 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 611 - HC - Income TaxDelay of 5318 days in filing the appeal - "sufficient cause" for the delay - addition of Rs. 50 Lakhs as undisclosed income - HELD THAT:- The impugned order dated 09.05.2008 was challenged by the petitioner by way of review and rectification petition before the Tribunal and the same were disposed of as early as on 04.11.2010 and 27.09.2013. No attempt was made thereafter to file the Tax Case Appeal, instead the petitioner has chosen to file a rectification petition before the First Appellate Authority and on its rejection, once again filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The complacency in the approach of the petitioner does not inspire confidence, but reflects apathy and lack of bona fide. Thus, we do not find any convincing reason set out in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition. It is trite law that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, it is for the applicant to explain that there was "sufficient cause" for the delay. It had been consistently held that "sufficient cause" would mean that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part, but must have acted diligently and not remained inactive. It is clear that the discretion to condone the delay ought to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. If it is found that the party has been negligent, not vigilant and lacking bona fide, the Court would not come to rescue of such litigants. We had already found that the conduct of the petitioner lacks bona fide and the reasons adduced do not satisfy the test laid down for constituting "sufficient cause". The reasons set out in the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay of 5318 days i.e., nearly 14 years are unconvincing and do not furnish any cause much less "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, instead reveal a callous attitude and a casual approach in availing the right of appeal. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project [2008 (11) TMI 611 - SUPREME COURT] has categorically observed that the Courts help those, who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights”. Therefore, we are not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 5318 days in filing the appeal.
|