TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2700X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this appeal, thus, the delay is not condoned, therefore, the appeal is dismissed. - ITA NO.4683/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 26-10-2015 - Shri Joginder Singh and Shri Sanjay Arora, JJ. Assessee by Shri K.Gopal Shri Jitendra Singh and Neha Paranjape Revenue by Shri Vinod Kumar-DR, ORDER Joginder Singh, The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13/12/2007 of the ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, confirming the claimed deduction u/s 80HHC of the Income tax Act, 1961 on DEPB benefits amounting to ₹ 1,63,48,487/- without appreciating the facts. 2. During hearing this appeal, we have heard Shri K. Gopal along with Shri Jitendra Sing and Neha Paranjape, ld. counsel for the assessee, and Shri Vinod Kumar, ld. DR. At the outset, the ld. DR, pointed out that this appeal is time barred by 1625 days. The ld. counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the application dated 10/12/2012, filed by the assessee, for condoning the delay along with an affidavit filed by the managing partner of the assessee firm. The contention of the assessee is that there is sufficient reason for the delay which may be condoned. However, the ld. DR, str ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. Further reliance was placed upon the decision and observation made therein by the Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of Vasu Co. Vs. State of Kerala (2001) 124 STC 124 (Ker.). We are of the view that it is not necessary in all cases to give evidence regarding the delay in filing appeals. The affidavits are documents of evidence. On the basis of the affidavits, if the Court is satisfied that sufficient explanation has been given for condoning delay, then the affidavit can be accepted as evidence. If proof of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ented by authorized representative, meaning thereby, the assessee was well equipped with the advice of the legal representatives and even otherwise, the appeal was to be prepared/filed by the representatives and not by the assessee. It is not the case that the assessee was not in a position to even sign the documents/appeal memo. It was clearly a case of conscious decision not to file the appeal at early stage and to file the appeal at the later stage. The assessee was having sufficient time and was not prevented by any sufficient cause. It is not a case of small delay rather delay of 1625 days ( Four year and forty five days). Broadly, we are of the view, that such a huge delay that too in the absence of plausible reasoning, should not be condoned. The assessee has not explained properly the reason of delay, which the assessee, otherwise, expected to adduce the delay with documentary evidence. This is a clear cut case of deliberate delay or consciously filing the delay after such a long time. As per provision of section 253(3), (3)A of the Act, the assessee is to file the appeal within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order of the ld. First Appellate Authority, whereas, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts, available on record, are judiciously examined then it can be said that the provisions relating to prescription of limitation in every statute must not be construed so liberally that it would have the effect of taking away the benefit accruing to the other party in a mechanical manner. Where the Legislature spells out a period of limitation and provides for power to condone the delay as well, there such delay can be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. Now, it is a settled principle of law that the provisions relating to specified period of limitation must be applied with their rigour and effective consequences. In this regard, reference can be made to the latest decision in the case of P. K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 2276. The relevant portion reads as under (page 2277):- Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court, was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such exercise of discretion. We are not able to appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has applied wrong principles of law or that it has relied upon incorrect principles of law regulating the controversy in issue (refer [1976] 105 ITR 133). We are also not in a position to agree with the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the afore-given three reasons amount to palpably erroneous error of law in exercise of discretion by the authorities concerned. On the contrary, we have already held that the reasons stated for declining the reference are well in consonance with the settled cannons of law governing the subject. Having cogitated over the matter and for the reasons aforestated, we do not find any error of jurisdiction or otherwise in the impugned order. We are constrained to hold that the view of the Tribunal in declining the reference to this court is fully justified and thus, we decline to issue any direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar, to state and refer the aforesaid question, as question of law, to this court in exercise of its power under section 256 of the Act. With the above observations, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
