TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1896X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case to reach the finding that there existed no sufficient and reasonable cause for the inordinate delay of 898 days and 883 days in filing the appeals for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 as the assessee has also not been able to establish that he was prevented by sufficient causes beyond his control from filing these appeals on time. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that, in the case on hand, the cause of substantial justice would not be served by condoning the inordinate delay in filing these appeals for which reasonable or sufficient cause has not been established. We accordingly reject these petitions for condonation of delay for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11. - ITA Nos. 2033 and 2034/Bang/2016 - - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns in the matter, the PCIT passed the impugned orders u/s 263 of the Act dated 24.03.2014 for both Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11. In these orders, the PCIT held that the orders of assessment for these two years being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue are set aside and directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to frame fresh orders of assessment for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 in accordance with law, after verification of details and affording the assessee opportunity of being heard in the matter. Order on petitions for condonation of delay in filing the appeals for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 before the ITAT, Bangalore 3.0 The present appeals by the assessee directed against the sepa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on one more ground that the Appellant would be subjected to undergo repetitive appeals against the assessment orders and fresh order u/s.263, if the impugned order is not contested. It is the unjust act of the department in issuing fresh notice/s.263 as above submitted that has compelled the Appellant and seek justice before the Hon'ble ITAT by contesting the order u/s. 263 at this stage. The following documents are enclosed herewith in evidence of the above averment: Fresh show cause notice u/s.263, dated, 09-08-2016 in F.No.263/PrCIT/KLB/2016-17, dated, 09-08-2016 issued by the Pr.CIT, which shows that the Department is again subjecting the Appellant to the repeated proceedings before the Principal CIT and consequently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onation of delay may not be refused. It was prayed that the delay in filing the appeals for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 before the Tribunal be condoned. 4. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative opposed the assessee's prayer for condonation of delay of 898 and 883 days in filing the appeals for Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2010-11 respectively. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the aforesaid delay should not be condoned in a routine manner and that a distinction ought to be drawn between a case where the delay is inordinate, as it is in the case on hand and in cases where the delay is of a few days. The learned Departmental Representative further contended that the explanation put forwa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that a liberal view ought to be taken, as there was a delay of only a very short period. Even in the land mark decision on the issue of condonation, Collector, Land Acquisition V MST Katiji (supra), cited by the assessee, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that courts should have a liberal and practical approach in exercising its discretionary powers of condonation of delay, the delay was of 4 days. 5.2 From a perusal of the averments made by the assessee in the petition for condonation of delay we are of the opinion that not only the submissions are merely self-serving statements, the veracity of which are not established but also there is an admitted inordinate delay of 898 days and 883 days in filing the appeal. The assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee of various courts and of the co-ordinate benches of this Tribunal (supra), have been duly considered and with due respects we find the factual matrix different therein. We have considered the factual matrix of this case to reach the finding that there existed no sufficient and reasonable cause for the inordinate delay of 898 days and 883 days in filing the appeals for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 as the assessee has also not been able to establish that he was prevented by sufficient causes beyond his control from filing these appeals on time. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that, in the case on hand, the cause of substantial justice would not be served by condoning the inordinate delay in filing these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
