TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t found to be satisfactory. The explanation tendered by the assessee does not satisfy the test of sufficient cause as required under Section 5 of the 1963 Act. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises and the appeal stands dismissed. - ITA No.107 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 24-5-2017 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, JJ. For The appellant : Mr. Ruchesh Sinha, Advocate ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. The appellant-assessee has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(in short, the Act ) against the order dated 12.8.2016, Annexure A.6 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (in short, the Tribunal ) in ITA No.898/CHD/2015, for the assessment year 2009-10, claiming following substantial questions of law:- ( i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in not condoning the delay of 1050 days in filing the appeal and holding the same to be time barred? ( ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is not perverse as the Income Tax Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal or not. He further submitted that during the relevant period, he suffered huge losses in the business and his assets were taken over by the HDFC Bank. Vide order dated 12.8.2016, Annexure A.6, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay holding that there was no correlation between the late filing of the appeal by the assessee and the matrimonial dispute of his daughter as the marriage was solemnized prior to the filing of the appeal before the Tribunal and thus, the delay could not be condoned. Hence the instant appeal by the assessee before this court. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-assessee. 4. Admittedly, the assessment order was passed under section 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2011. The appeal was filed by the assessee before CIT(A) on 24.1.2012 which was decided on 15.10.2012. The copy of the order was received by the assessee on 30.11.2012. The appeal before the Tribunal could be filed within sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The last date for filing the appeal was 30/31.01.2013. However, the same was filed on 15.12.2015 and thus there was a delay of 1050 days in filing the appeal. The reasons given by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the assessee in tax matter. When assessee could file the appeal before learned CIT(Appeals) having same reason earlier, there was no reason to believe that assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the period of limitation. Further, in the application for condonation of delay the assessee submitted that when impugned order was received on 30.11.2012, assessee had requested his counsel to file the appeal before Tribunal but the counsel did not file the appeal due to some confusion. It would, therefore, clearly prove that assessee was aware of the fact that after receipt of the impugned order, assessee was required to file appeal before the Tribunal within limitation so as to challenge the rejection of the books of account and application of higher NP rate in appeal before the Tribunal. Contradictory stand is taken in application of condonation of delay. Therefore, there was no reason to believe that assessee was later on prevented by any sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the period of limitation. Thus, the explanation given by the assessee does not inspire confidence and would not discl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this stage to discuss each and every judgment cited before us for the simple reason that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not lay down any standard or objective test. The test of sufficient cause is purely an individualistic test. It is not an objective test. Therefore, no two cases can be treated alike. The statute of limitation has left the concept of sufficient cause delightfully undefined, thereby leaving to the Court a well-intentioned discretion to decide the individual cases whether circumstances exist establishing sufficient cause. There are no categories of sufficient cause. The categories of sufficient cause are never exhausted. Each case spells out a unique experience to be dealt with by the Court as such. It was also recorded that:- For the aforestated reasons, we hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special leave petition stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.... 7. From the above, it emerges that the law of limitation has been enacted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
