9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rn of income for the year under consideration declaring total income at Rs. 2,80,161/- on 31.10.2005. The Assessing officer framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2007 determining the total income at Rs. 58,67,550/-, which included the following major additions:- i) Addition on account of suppressed closing stock - Rs. 28,73,740/- ii) Addition on account of wastage declared - Rs. 15,90,540/- iii) Addition on account of job work done - Rs. 5,20,889/- iv) Addition on account of unaccounted sales made - Rs. 3,27,335/- v) Disallowance of interest paid to family members - Rs. 61,974/- The Assessing officer noted that in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, it was observed that assessee had furnished i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee was required to file the appeal before the Tribunal within 60 days from the date of communication of the order. Thus, the appeal is time barred by 613 days. When the Registry of this Tribunal pointed out to the assessee that there is a delay of 613 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted an application for Condonation of Delay stating as under:- "Sub: Reason for delay. It is submitted that we have received the defect memo that the appeal is late by 613 days. In this regard, it is submitted that order, dated 6.6.2011 of the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was received by the assesses on 14.06.2011 and, as such, the appeal before the Hon'ble Bench was due to be filed within 60 days i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was dismissed by the CIT (A)-l, Ludhiana. 3. That the said order of dismissing the appeal of assessee u/s 271 (1)(c) for Asstt. Year 2005-2006 was given to me for filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and the said order got misplaced by me since the same had been placed in some other file inadvertently. 4. That due to the above said facts, the appeal could not be filed in the above said case in time, and the assessee was under the bonafide belief that she having handed over the paper to me, the appeal must have been filed. 5. That the order of the Hon'ble Bench of ITAT was received by me in the month of April 2013 with regard to quantum appeal of the assesses and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 65 days, which is factually incorrect. The exact calculation of days are as under:- Date of communication order dated 14.6.2011 Month Days June 2011 16 July, 2011 31 Aug., 2011 31 Sept., 2011 30 Oct., 2011 31 Nov., 2011 30 Dec., 2011 31 January 2012 31 Feb. 2012 29 March 2012 31 April, 2012 30 May, 2012 31 June 2012 30 July, 2012 31 August, 2012 31 Sept, 2012 30 Oct., 2012 31 Nov., 2012 30 Dec., 2012 31 January, 2013 31 February 2013 28 March 2013 31 April 2013 17 Total 673 Less 60 Total days 613 In fact, the total days from 1.9.2011 to 30.9.2012 including 29 days of February 2012 (leap year) comes to 396 days and not 365 days. Therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of individual case whether the said circumstances constitute a sufficient cause" for condoning the delay. Thus, the phrase 'sufficient cause' is to be determined upon the facts of each particular case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down. In number of cases, the Courts have held that negligence of an agent of a party is the negligence of the party himself and therefore, cannot be furnish sufficient cause for delay. In the instant case, the counsel of the assessee Shri Amit Bhalla, advocate has stated that the impugned order was given to him for filing the appeal before the Tribunal and such order got misplaced by him since the same had been placed in some other file inadvertently. Thus, the assessee wants to demonstrate that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that provisions relating to specified period of limitation must be applied with their rigour and effective consequences. In the instant case, we are not satisfied that there had been diligence on the part of the assessee and she was guilty of negligence whatsoever. In our opinion, party guilty of negligence cannot ask for condonation of delay of about 613 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where inordinate delay of 613 days in filing the appeal should be condoned. Accordingly, we decline to condone the delay in filing the appeal and, as such, the appeal is dismissed. At this stage, we may also add here that w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
