TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 2003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, these grounds raised by the assessee stands dismissed. - I.T.A. No. 6979 to 6984/Mum/2017 ,I.T.A. No. 6985 to 6992/Mum/2017 ,I.T.A. No. 6993 to 6998/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 23-1-2019 - HON BLE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM HON BLE SH. G. MANJUNATHA, AM For the Appellant : Ms. Mugha Dashora, AR For the Respondent : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore, DR ORDER Per Bench: The present twenty (20) Appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) - 59, Mumbai dated 06.09.2017 for the respective assessment years. 2. Since all the issues involved in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d filed all twenty appeals against the orders of Ld. CIT(A) thereby taking the solitary ground that late filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) was based on the ground that assessee was given wrong advice by the Tax Consultants and therefore the assessee should not be allowed to suffer because of the wrong advice given by the tax consultant. 6. On deep scrutiny of the factual position as put forth by the assessee, we find that assessee had taken a conscious decision after due consideration at the relevant point of time for not filing the appeals against the impugned orders. Thereafter, at a later stage, the appeals were filed after gap of many months/years by following few orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Thus, in this way, according ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the legal paper book relating to condonation of delay i.e Asthe Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vrs. PCIT (ITA No. 229/Mum/18), Vijay Vishin Meghani V. DCIT 86 taxmann.com 98 (Bom HC), Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Smt Nirmal Devi 118 ITR 507 (SC), Y. P. Trivedi Vrs. JCIT (ITA No. 5994/Mum/10) and Perfect Scale Co. Pvt. Ltd vrs. DCIT 37 CCH 434 (Mum-Trib), wherein it was held that assessee should not suffer on account of the wrong advice of the consultant, hence in the substantial interest of justice, the delay was condone. 11. We have also considered the judgment passed by Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Somerset Place Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vrs. ITO (2015) 57 taxman. Com 7 (Bom), wherein it was held that wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s beyond the control of the assessee. In other words the condonation of delay cannot be taken as granted. 14 We also noticed that the delay in the present appeals are not of a month or two, but is for a significantly large period aggregating 8956 days for all the appeals taken together, ranging from a minimum of 589 days to a maximum of 1168 days, it is well-settled that a distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and where the delay is of few days only. These appeals fall in the former category. The quantum of delay demonstrates and makes it manifestly evident that these appeals were not prosecuted with due care and diligence. 15. In the case of Rankak Others Vrs. Reva Coal Ltd. [AIR 1962 (SC) 361], the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
