TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re can be no reason to allow his application and condone the substantial delay of 339 days involved in preferring of the present appeal. In the present case, the delay of 339 days cannot be simply condoned for the reason that the regular counsel of the assessee lacked proper knowledge about the appellate proceedings, specifically when the conduct of the assessee before the lower appellate authority clearly evidences his disregard for the process of law, which, I find, he had carried forward before me by preferring the appeal beyond a period of 339 days after the lapse of the stipulated time period. Also, as observed in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd.[ 1961 (5) TMI 54 - SUPREME COURT] that seeker of j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not well versed as regards the procedure involved in filing of the present appeal. However, the lackadaisical conduct of the assessee can safely, or in fact inescapably be gathered from the fact that he had even in the course of the proceedings before the CIT(Appeals) adopted a callous approach and had despite having been afforded sufficient opportunities not participated in the proceedings before him. The Ld. AR could not controvert the conduct of the assessee in the course of the proceedings before the first appellate authority. 3. Pre contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short DR ) vehemently submitted that the inordinate delay of 339 days did not merit to be condoned, specifically considering the past conduct of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of his callous conduct and a habitual lackadaisical approach delayed the filing of the present appeal by a substantial period of 339 days, therefore, the application filed by him seeking condonation of the delay therein involved does not merit acceptance and is liable to be rejected at the threshold. 5. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Phoenix Mills Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT in ITA No.6240/MUM/2007 for A.Y.1999-2000, dated 23.03.2020, had held that where an application for condonation of delay has been moved bonafide, then, the Court would normally condone the delay, but where the delay has not been explained at all and in fact there is an unexplained and inordinate delay coupled with negligen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormal conduct of a litigant. However, as observed by me hereinabove, as the assessee appellant in the present case is habitually acting in defiance of law, therefore, there can be no reason to allow his application and condone the substantial delay of 339 days involved in preferring of the present appeal. 7. Also, I may herein draw support from a Third Member decision of co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Chennai in the case of Jt. CIT Vs. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd. (2007) 104 ITD 149 (Chennai), wherein a distinction was drawn between normal delay and inordinate delay. It was held as under: 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
