9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd on facts of the case, in sustaining the addition of Rs. 28,90,247/- u/s 50C of the Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if need arise." 2. Vide application filed on 13.04.2024, assessee has raised following additional grounds of appeal, which is reproduced below: "The challenge to the sanction u/s 151 and reassessment notice being a jurisdictional challenge is being taken up before the Hon'ble ITAT on the basis of the well laid down ratio by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P.V.Doshi vs. CIT (1978) 113 ITR 22(Guj.), which has been followed by the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Shrimant F.P. Gaekwad vs. ACIT - (2011) 3 ITR(T) 476 (Ahd) and by the Hon'ble ITAT, jurisdictional Surat Bench in the case of Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar vs. DCIT -IT(SS)A No.150 to 154/Ahd/2015. The appellant hereby prays of this Hon'ble Tribunal to admit the accompanying additional ground of appeal which is a pure question of law and does not require any further facts other than the ones which are on record for their adjudication." 3. The facts of the case in brief are that re-assessment proceedings u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the reasons stated for delay in Form-35 are as under: "I hereby inform your goodness that, I am less educated and unaware of legal knowledge and procedures and I have entrusted all income tax related activities to CA Bharatbhai Kaka di and my assessment order accepted by our CA. Bharatbhai Kakadia. Subsequently, our CA is currently applying appeal against the order of my father Shri Ramubhai Narotmabhai Patel. My father, Shri Rambhai Narotmabhai Patel, has asked him that you have filed an appeal in the case of my son Ashokbhai Rambahai Patel in the same case earlier and he said I have not appealed. But that order was placed somewhere from me. So that my appeal was pending within the time limit. Thus, we did not know whether our CA Bharatbhai Kakadia has taken any further action against the order. As well as we are ignorant of the law and due to the agriculture activity and the house work. Also, no further action was taken against our order from our CA. Therefore, we could not appeal within the time limit against the order. The circumstances under which we execute this affidavit is because of error of my CA. the delay due to ignorance and mistake of our CA, Bharatbhai Kakadia. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee, as reproduced in the appellate order, would not constitute "sufficient cause" for the purpose of condoning the delay. The delay is not for a short period but it is for a substantial long period of 1154 days. From the reasons given above, it is clear that the assessee was negligent and casual in perusing its matter before the Ld. CIT(A), After receiving the assessment order, he never followed it up for filing appeal before CIT(A). Hence, there was no sufficient cause for the delay. 7. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue of condonation of delay. We have also deliberated on the decisions relied upon by the Ld.AR of the assessee. In the reasons given before CIT(A), assessee has stated that he was less educated and he had left all income-tax matters to CA Bharatbhai Kakadia, who had received his assessment order. Subsequently, he was filing appeal of his father. His father asked him if he (CA) had filed appeal in case of appellant. The CA replied that he had not filed any appeal in case of assessee and the order was placed somewhere else. Thus, the assessee did not know whether CA had taken any action against the order. Further, assessee is ignorant abou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Disputes Redressal Forum and got compensation of Rs. 50,000/- from the advocate. In present case, the appellant has neither filed complaint against his CA (Bharatbhai Kakaria) nor filed any confirmation or affidavit about the fact stated in the reasons given above from Shri Bharatbhai Kakaria. In above case relied upon appellant came to know when execution warrant was issued by court; however, in present case assessment order was received on 15.12.2016 but appeal was filed on 02.03.2020. Thus, it is a case of gross negligence and inaction by appellant. Hence, the facts of the case relied upon by appellant are different from its own case. 7.3 Let us now discuss about some subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on issue of condonation of delay. The decision relied upon by the Ld.AR of the assessee in case of N. Balakrishnana (supra) was pronounced on September, 3, 1998. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi & Ors (Civil Appeal No.7696 of 2021 dated 16.12.2021 has set aside the order of Hon'ble High Court which had condoned the delay of 1011 days. The Hon'ble High Court observed that there was no willful ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. It also observed that the expression "sufficient cause" cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. It is further observed that in case a party acted with negligence, lack of bona fides or there is inaction then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. 7.6 The Hon'ble Court also referred to the decision in the case of Pundik Jalam Patil (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The Courts help those who are vigilant and "do not slumber over their rights." 7.7 Applying the law laid down by this Hon'ble Supreme Court in these cases, it was held that the Hon'ble High Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously in condoning the huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the appeal by respondent. The order of Hon'ble High Court was found to be unsustainable, both on law as well as on facts. 8. We also find that in the following decisions namely (i) Ramlal, Motilal and Chho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by LRs & Ors (2007) 11 SCC 285 (SC), (ii) Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji 167 ITR 471 (SC)d (iiii) Ramlalf Motilal and Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (supra), (iv) Maqbul Ahmad and Ors vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh and Ors, AIR 1935 PC 85 (SC) (v) Brijesh Kumar and Ors vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 2014 (4) SCALE 50 (vi) Lanka Venkateswarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors, (2011) 4 SCC 363 (vii) State of Jharkhand & Ors vs. Ashok Kumar Chokhani & Ors. AIR 2009 SC 1927 (viii) Basawaraj and Ors (supra) and held as under: "7. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the legal maxim "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium" i.e. it is for the general welfare that a period of limitation be put to litigation. The object is to put an end to every legal remedy and to have a fixed period of life for every litigation as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. Even public policy requires that there should be an end to the litigation otherwise it would be a dichotomy if the litigation is made immortal vis-a-vis the litigating parties i.e. human beings, who are mortals." 8.3 It has also discussed the case of Collec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal; (vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision." 8.5 The Hon'ble Supreme Court accordingly refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 8.6 Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
