TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s for the applicant to explain that there was sufficient cause for the delay. It had been consistently held that sufficient cause would mean that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part, but must have acted diligently and not remained inactive. It is clear that the discretion to condone the delay ought to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. If it is found that the party has been negligent, not vigilant and lacking bona fide, the Court would not come to rescue of such litigants. We had already found that the conduct of the petitioner lacks bona fide and the reasons adduced do not satisfy the test laid down for constituting sufficient cause . The reasons set out in the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay of 5318 days i.e., nearly 14 years are unconvincing and do not furnish any cause much less sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, instead reveal a callous attitude and a casual approach in availing the right of appeal. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Proj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh in his custody was seized and an F.I.R. came to be registered. The police authorities informed the seizure to the Income Tax Authorities. 4. Though there are other facts which have been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay, we are not referring to the same inasmuch as the same were made in support of the petitioner's contention on merits, which we do not propose to examine. We intend to confine only to the averments relating to seizure and requisition by the department inasmuch as the petitioner had placed emphasis on the above fact as leading them to file a review petition against the order of the Tribunal dated 09.05.2008. The petitioner filed a Crl.M.P.No.1160 of 2003 in respect of seized cash of Rs. 50 lakhs for return of the same. The department had issued warrant for requisition of assets under Section 132 A of the Act and filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.1205 of 2003. A common order dated 02.08.2004 was passed dismissing the petitioner's petition for release and return of the seized cash while allowing the department's petition under Section 132 A(1)(c) of the Act and ordered delivery of the cash to the Income Tax De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been filed challenging the order dated 09.05.2008 in IT(SS).A.No.168/Mds/2006 inter alia on various grounds including that the Block assessment order was a nullity and the order of the Revenue to the extent relating to addition of alleged undisclosed income of Rs. 50 Lakhs is beyond jurisdiction. 7. To the contrary, counter has been filed by the learned counsel for the Respondent wherein it has been stated that the entire attempt made by the petitioner is an after thought and the reason set out in the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay does not reveal any cause for the delay muchless sufficient cause , instead the affidavit reflects gross laxity, casual approach and lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner as evident from the fact that the same order has been attempted to be challenged before various forums on multiple occasions. 8. Heard both sides. Perused the material on record. 9. We find that there is merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent. The impugned order dated 09.05.2008 was challenged by the petitioner by way of review and rectification petition before the Tribunal and the same were disposed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See Manindra Land and Building Corpn. Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee [AIR 1964 SC 1336] , Mata Din v. A. Narayanan [(1969) 2 SCC 770 ], Parimal v. Veena [(2011) 3 SCC 545] and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai [(2012) 5 SCC 157]). (b) Ajay Dabre v. Pyare Ram [2023 SCC Online SC 92]: 13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer while rejecting an application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows: 15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the sufficient cause which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
