TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay that the Director came to know of the order of the Tribunal only on December, 2017 does not appear in the above facts a bona fide explanation. No reason to condone the delay of 435 days in filing the Appeal - Notice of Motion No.318 of 2018 in Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 681 of 2018 with Income Tax Appeal (L) No.681 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 13-7-2018 - M.S. SANKLECHA, SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ. Mr. Rohan Deshpande, for the Applicant/Orig. Appellant. P.C : None appears for the Respondent, despite service. This Notice of Motion has been taken out by the Applicant, seeking condonation of delay of 435 days in filing the accompanying Appeal from the order dated 8th July, 2016, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., v/s. CIT (Notice of Motion No.517 of 2013 and Income Tax Appeal (L) No.403 of 2013) rendered on 9th July, 2013 ; and (iii) This Court's decision in Vijay Vishin Meghani v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Income Tax Appeal Nos. 493 of 2015 and 508 of 2015) rendered on 19th September, 2017. In Howarh Municipality (supra), the delay of one year and seven months was condoned by the Supreme Court. While our Court in M/s. Prima Paper Engineering (supra) condoned a delay of 515 days and in Mr. Vijay V. Meghani (supra) of 2984 days, before the Tribunal was condoned on payments of costs at ₹ 25,000/per Appeal. 4. From the facts of this case, it is clear that the Applicant had received the impugned order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on by Mr. Deshpande, in support would not apply to the present facts. In the case of the Administrator, Howrah Municipality Others (supra), the Supreme Court only laid down the general propositions of law that depending on the circumstances of each case, the Court would have to decide whether in a particular case, sufficient cause has been made out or not and the Court must exercise its judicial discretion in the interest of substantial justice. We are bound by the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court. The object of substantial justice, would also require us to take into account the rights which have accrued to the other party by virtue of the Applicant having been negligent in prosecuting his right of appeal. 7. So far as the deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order did not exercise due care and diligence. It appears that the impugned order of the Tribunal was accepted and only upon the service of prosecution notice this exercise of filing the appeal was triggered. The explanation offered does not inspire confidence. 10. It is undisputed that the order of the Tribunal dated 8th July, 2016 was served/ received by the Appellant on 14th September, 2016 and the explanation for the delay that the Director came to know of the order of the Tribunal only on December, 2017 does not appear in the above facts a bona fide explanation. 11. In the above view, we see no reason to condone the delay of 435 days in filing the Appeal. 12. Accordingly, Notice of Motion is rejected. In the above view, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
