TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax(A) - I, Hyderabad for AY 2010-11. 2. On perusal of record, we find that the assessee filed this appeal before us with a delay of 395 days. In this connection, the assessee filed a petition requesting for condonation of the said delay wherein it was stated as follows: The petitioner is an individual. He is the Managing Director of Shanta Sriram Constructions Pvt. Ltd. The Income-Tax authorities conducted search and seizure operations at the residential premises of the petitioner on 25.3.2010. In response to notice u/s 153A of the I.T. Act, the petitioner filed the return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 on 26.7.2011 declaring an income of ₹ 72,40,000/- as admitted before the DDIT (Inv). The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) I.T. Act on 30.12.2011. Aggrieved with the order of assessment, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals]- I, Hyderabad. The learned CIT (Appeals) disposed of the said appeal vide order in ITA No.0572/CC- 2,Hyd/CIT(A)-I/11-12 dated 27.12.2012. During the relevant period i.e. January February 2013, the petitioner was preoccupied with the criminal case of embezzlement of cash of &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order on 27/12/2012. The assessee stated in the petition that during the relevant period i.e. January February 2013, the petitioner was pre-occupied with the criminal case of embezzlement of cash of ₹ 14 lakhs belonging to Shanta Sriram Constructions. The criminal case was posted before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, RR District for recording the evidence of the petitioner. On 6.3.2013 the petitioner's evidence was recorded by the said Court (copy annexed). The petitioner due to his pre-occupation with the legal proceedings in the criminal case mentioned above, could not pay his attention on this matter. The petitioner humbly submits that during the year 2013, the company Shantha Sriram Constructions Pvt. Ltd., was undertaking construction work at about 12 different sites at different locations and was also preparing ground work for entering into Development agreements at three new sites at Manikonda, Hyderabad, Blue Moon venture at Begumpet and Sunshine Venture, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. All such works were to be personally looked after by the Managing Director. The maintenance of the records of all the works was centralized at the registered of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me importance. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation in saying that where no negligence, or inaction, or want of bonafides can be imputed to the petitioner, a liberal consideration is to be given to the expression 'sufficient cause' while exercising a discretion to condone the delay in not preferring an appeal, but where there is a gross negligence, inaction or want of bonafides is prima-facie imputed on the petitioner, the provision to condone the delay cannot be so liberally construed, and more so where the delay is not of a few days only. 4.3 In this context, we may refer to a recent decision of ITAT, Chennai Bench B (TM) in the case of of JCIT Vs. Tractors Farm Equipments Ltd., (2007) 104 ITD 149(Chennai) (TM) where the Third Member agreeing with the view of the Accountant Member and after deliberating upon the decision in the case of Srinvasa Charitable Trust Vs. DCIT, (2006) 280 ITR 357 (Madras), Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil(supra), Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katigi, (1987) 167 ITR 471(SC) and Rmalal V. Rewa Coalfields Ltd(supra) has held that there exists no sufficient and good reason for delay of 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal was prepared and filed before the Tribunal and in that process the delay of 38 days occurred. The delay of 38 days was condoned by the Apex Court in view of the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil (supra). In this case it was held that in exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the latter case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard. The court has to exercise the discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in considering the expression sufficient cause , the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. 6. It is pertinent to note that in the case of Mst. Katiji (supra) the delay was only four days. In the case of Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil (su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h (HUF), (2007) 104 ITD 1(Delhi) (SB), the Hon'ble Special Bench has held that majority decision in the Third Member case is entitled to as much weight and respect as a decision of a Special Bench and it should be followed and applied by regular Benches and cannot be disregarded unless its views are contradictory to the decision of Special Bench constituted by the Hon'ble President u/s 255(3) of the Act. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Special Bench, ITAT, Delhi, as extracted from the Head Note, is as under:- The Delhi High Court in the case of P.C. Puri Vs. CIT(1985) 151 ITR 584 had clearly laid down that where decision is given by the Third Judge on account of difference between the two Judges hearing a matter, his opinion is decisive and, therefore, for that reason, decision by three Judges should be taken as decision by the Full Bench. Therefore, the majority decision in the Third Member case is entitled to as much weight and respect as a decision of a Special Bench and it should be followed and applied by regular Benches and cannot be disregarded. Further, from a reading of sub-section (3) and subsection (4) of section 255, it is evident that the Specia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/ benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a Judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible. (Vide: Chandigarh Administration Anr. v. Jagjit Singh Anr., AIR 1995 SC 705, M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the party concerned, whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible. (Vide: Madanlal v. Shyamlal, AIR 2002 SC 100; and Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu Ors. v. Gobardhan Sao Ors., AIR 2002 SC 1201.) 12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation mayharshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all itsrigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power toextend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. A resultflowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. The statutory provision ma y cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means the law is hard but it is the law , stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, inconvenience is not a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute. 13. The Statute of Limitation is founded on public policy, its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
