TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent cause for the delay being shown, admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of limitation. Thus, the appellant/assessee has to show that he had "sufficient cause" for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. It is well settled law that in essence, the phrase "sufficient cause" is not a question of principle, but is a question of fact. Hence, whether to condone the delay, or not depends upon the fact and circumstances of each case as "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay depends only on the fact placed by the applicant before the authority concerned. Thus, it is clear that it is required to be taken in the facts of individual case whether the said circumstances constitute a "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay. This in the present case the delay in filing the appeals before the learned CIT (Appeals) can not be condoned. - Decided against assessee. - ITA NOS. 352 TO 356/CHD/2015 - - - Dated:- 3-7-2015 - SHRI H.L.KARWA, JJ For The Appellant : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal For The Respondent : Shri S.K. Mittal, DR ORDER PER H.L.KARWA, VP : These appeals are filed by the assessee under section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 148 of the Act on 26.12.2000, which was duly served upon the assessee on 4.1.2001. As per the Assessing Officer, the assessee did not file return of income in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act and, therefore, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act calling for the bank accounts, passport, information in respect of investment in the House No.116, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh and evidence of the sources of expenditure on the education of the daughter. The assessee did not comply with the notice, nor sought any adjournment. According to the Assessing Officer, summons under section 131 of the Act were issued to the assessee on 27.2.2002. After affording due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the Assessing Officer framed assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 22.3.2002 and made certain additions/disallowances in the said order. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment years under consideration, the assessee filed appeals before the learned CIT (Appeals) on 17.1.2013 which were barred by limitation. The assessee did not file any application for condon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He further submitted that the delay in filing the appeals cannot be extended simply because the assessee's case is hard and calls for sympathy. Further more, the assessee could not establish that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeals before the learned CIT (Appeals). He further submitted that the assessee, after about 12 years, filed the appeals for the assessment years 1994-95 to 1997-98 and the appeal for 1998-99 was filed after about 10 years. He, therefore, submitted that the learned CIT (Appeals) was fully justified in not condoning the inordinate delay in filing the appeals before him. Accordingly, it was submitted that all the appeals may be dismissed with costs. 6. The question arises in this case for determination is as under : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (Appeals)-2, Chandigarh was right in holding that the appeals filed by the assessee were barred my limitation? 7. Now, there is no dispute that the assessment orders (for the assessment years 1994-95 to 1997-98) were passed on 26.12.2000. However, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order for the assessment year 1998-99 on 22.3.2002. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime. These were reasonable causes which led to the delay in filing of the appeals and therefore the said delay deserves to be condoned. It is prayed that the delay in filing of the appeals may please be condoned u/s 249(3) of the Income Tax Act. We shall be highly obliged. 9. The learned CIT (Appeals) rejected the aforesaid application of the assessee for the following reasons (the orders of the CIT (Appeals) are similar for all the assessment years under consideration): '3. I have considered the application of the appellant regarding condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The appeal has been filed late by more than eleven years and the reason given is that the appellant was not keeping good health, was in severe depression due to various issues and that the appellant was in hiding, since the lenders were asking for money, but these reasons do not explain such a long delay in filing appeal. 3.1 The appeal has to be filed within thirty days of the receipt of the order, which is clearly mentioned in the demand notice. The issue of condonation of delay had come up before Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Brijbandhu Nanda (44 ITR 688). The facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. The learned counsel for the assessee in course of his argument relied on the said Madras case, which, in my opinion, has also no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. There is no question of mistake in law in the present case. 3.2 Thus, even the delay of one day was not condoned by the Hon'ble Orissa High Court. There is sanctity attached to the limitation prescribed under the law, since the finality of a decision is a valuable right which vests in a party not aggrieved by the order and the expiry of period of limitation acts as an assurance that the order has become final. Hence, the question of condonation of delay cannot be decided in a casual manner. Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has also held in the case of Ram Mohan Kabra (257 ITR 773) that the delay can be condoned only for good and sufficient reasons, supported by cogent and proper evidences. The appellant has not explained properly the large delay in filing the present appeal and so the delay in filing the present appeal is not condoned u/s 249(3) of the Act and the appeal is dismissed in-limine. 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.' 10. On perusal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellate proceedings before this Tribunal, the assessee was directed to file an affidavit regarding his job history. In this regard, the assessee submitted an affidavit dated 25.6.2015, wherein he has stated that he is a permanent resident of Flat No.5003, Pancham Cooperative Housing Society, Sector 68, Mohali. He has joined service with the Punjab Civil Secretariat as clerk on 1.2.1968 and regularly joined as clerk w.e.f. 4.10.1968 in the Department of Industries Commerce Punjab. Later on, he was promoted as Assistant in the year 1983, further promoted as Superintendent Grade-II on 19.3.2002 and then promoted as Superintendent Grade-I on 11.12.2008 and finally he retired from the above office as Superintendent Grade-I on 31.3.2009. From the aforesaid affidavit, it is clear that he was in active service with the Department of Industries Commerce, Punjab. The assessee has worked as Assistant from 1983 to March, 2002. He was promoted as Superintendent-II on 19.3.2002 and then promoted as Superintendent Grade-I on 11.12.2008. It shows that the assessee was regularly performing his duties in his Department. It is true that in case of illness, the proof is needed that the assessee/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
