Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (1) TMI 1314

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e the Tribunal. In fact, the conduct of the assessee before the lower appellate authority and the AO clearly evidences his disregard for the process of law, which, as find, he had carried forward before me by preferring the appeal beyond a period of 1563 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 justice must come with clean hands, therefore, now when in the present appeals the assessee appellant had 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, we decline to condone t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the delay involved in filing of the present appeals had occasioned on account of lapse on the part of his regular counsel, viz. Shri Shailesh Agrawal, CA who had failed to provide the requisite details and properly guide him as regards filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the substantial delay involved in filing of the present appeals had occasioned because regular counsel of the assessee, viz. Shri Shailesh Agrawal due to the ill-health of his father could not properly attend to his work. Elaborating further, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that due to the aforesaid compelling circumstances Shri Shailesh Agrawal (supra) could not properly guide the assessee as regards prefer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he 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 which the A.O was constrained to frame the respective assessments vide his orders passed u/ss.144/147 of the Act. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances under consideration, I am of the considered view that as there is an inordinate de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessee had on account of his callous conduct and a habitual lackadaisical approach delayed the filing of the present appeals by a substantial period of 1563 days, therefore, the applications filed by him seeking condonation of the delay therein involved does not merit acceptance and are liable to be rejected at the threshold. 5. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal 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 negli .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or normal 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 1563 days involved in preferring of the captioned appeals. 7. Also, I may herein draw support from a Third Member decision of a co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Jt. CIT Vs. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd. (2007) 104 ITD 149 (Chennai), wherein a fine 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 th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates