TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As assessee has failed to come forth with any good and sufficient reason that would justify condonation of the substantial delay involved in preferring of the captioned appeals. Therefore, the condonation of delay which was without any reasonable cause was declined. Thus dismissing all the captioned appeals of the assessee as barred by limitation. - Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member And Shri Arun Khodpia, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Mr.Akshay Ringasia, CA And Mr.Rajesh Kumar Chawda, CA For the Respondent : Mr.Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr.DR/Smt.Ila M.Parmar, CIT-DR ORDER PER BENCH: The above captioned 7 appeals were filed by two different assessees, Smt. Fazil Pradhan Mr. Javed Ali Pradhan. These appeals were directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Raipur, as per the following details: Appeal No. Date of order of the Ld.CIT(A) Assessment Year Name of the assessee ITA No.294/RPR/2016 24.02.2015 2010-11 Smt.Fazila Pradhan ITA No.295/RPR/2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AY Name of the assessee No. of days delay Reasons explained in the Affidavit by the assessee 1 ITA No.294/RPR/2016 2010-11 Smt.Fazil Pradhan 475 Mistake of counsel who had given incorrect advice to the asseseee, all seven appeals are filed before the Tribunal belatedly. 2 ITA No.295/RPR/2016 2011-12 46 3 ITA No.297/RPR/2016 2001-02 Mr.Javed Ali Pradhan 545 4 ITA No.298/RPR/2016 2002-03 545 5 ITA No.299/RPR/2016 2003-04 545 6 ITA No.300/RPR/2016 2005-06 545 7 ITA No.301/RPR/2016 2006-07 545 4. The reason for delay explained by the Ld.AR of the assessee stating that the delay was on account of il ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld Sr. DR strongly requested that in the facts and circumstances of the present appeals, condonation of delay shall not be permitted, and appeals filed by the assessee should be dismissed on this count itself. 6. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. Without doubt, substantial delay was observed in all the aforesaid appeals, for which, explanation was offered by the assessee. However, the explanations advanced by the assessee were not found justifiable, since the reasons assigned by the assessee towards the delay happened in filing of the appeals were not enough to establish that the assessees were prevented by sufficient cause in filing of the aforesaid appeals. It was the settled principle of law that the burden of showing the delay is on the assessees to show that there was sufficient cause for the delay, in a judgment by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Suranjan v. Ashok Kumar FA No.1005/2019 decided on 15.11.2020, it was observed that party who has not acted diligently or remains inactive is not entitled for condonation of delay . The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Ramling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essees, because in present cases the assesseed were unable to bring on record anything which brings the case of the assessee within the ambit ratio of law laid by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co Ltd v. Nirmala Devi Ors. (supra). Our observation is further fortified in terms of the observations of ITAT Raipur SMC Bench in the case of Shyam Sundar Agarwal v. ITO in ITA Nos.170, 171 172/RPR/2022 dated 18.01.2023, wherein, it has been held as under: 4. On a careful perusal of the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, I find that the assessee has not been able to come forth with any justifiable reason leading to the substantial delay of 1563 days in filing of the captioned appeals. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the assessee had as a matter of a consistent practice without any justifiable reason delayed preferring of the present appeals, it can safely be concluded that he is habitually adopting a lackadaisical approach before the appellate authorities. Apart from that, I find that the assessee had failed to participate in the assessment proceedings for A.Y.2007-08 and A.Y.2008-09, due to wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been explained at all and in fact there is an unexplained and inordinate delay coupled with negligence or sheer carelessness, then, the discretion of the court in such cases would normally tilt against the applicant. Reverting to the facts of the present case, I have already examined the reasons that had led to the inordinate delay, which has not been explained by the assessee to have occasioned due to bonafide reasons. As observed by me hereinabove, as the assessee had remained negligent regarding the process of law even before the first appellate authority and had filed the appeals before me after 1563 days, therefore, there appears to be no reason to adopt a liberal view and condone the inordinate delay therein involved. Also, I may observe at this juncture that the law of limitation has to be construed strictly as it has an effect of vesting on one and taking away the right from the other party. The delay in filing of the appeals cannot be condoned in a mechanical or a routine manner since that would undoubtedly jeopardize the legislative intent behind Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 6. I may herein observe that in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Administrator, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preferring of the captioned appeals, therefore, I decline to condone the delay of 1563 days and, thus, without adverting to the merits of the case dismiss all the captioned appeals of the assessee as barred by limitation. 8. Respectfully following the observations of ITAT Raipur Bench, wherein, various case laws decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court and co-ordinate bench of Tribunals, were relied upon, and has observed that the assessee has failed to come forth with any good and sufficient reason that would justify condonation of the substantial delay involved in preferring of the captioned appeals. Therefore, the condonation of delay which was without any reasonable cause was declined. Under the identical circumstances in the present cases, we are of the considered view that without sufficient cause for delay, we are inclined to decline the condonation of delay in the aforesaid seven appeals, and therefore, without going into the merits of the cases, dismissing all the captioned appeals of the assessee as barred by limitation. 9. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed in terms of our observations hereinabove. Order pronounced on the 09th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
