KRUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,WADA THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8 2 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

At the very outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 656 days in filing the present appeal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the delay, the relevant contents of which are reproduced hereinbelow:

I have heard the rival submissions, perused the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, the documents placed on record and the material available before us.

The expression "sufficient cause" has not been defined under the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom v. Bhargavi Amma (2008) 8 SCC 321 and R.B. Ramalingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari (2009) 2 SCC 689 has held that the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. However, the power to condone delay is discretionary and the applicant is required to satisfactorily explain the delay and establish that the delay occurred due to circumstances beyond his control and not due to negligence or inaction.

It is equally well settled that where the delay is substantial, the explanation furnished must satisfactorily account for the entire period of delay. While a liberal approach is warranted, such approach cannot be extended to condone delay where the explanation does not establish due diligence and bona fide conduct.

In the present case, the explanation offered by the assessee for the delay of 656 days has been carefully considered. The assessee has stated that the order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the Ld. NFAC was served through the Income Tax portal but remained unnoticed. It has further been stated that during the relevant period the assessee was facing financial difficulties, there was shortage of staff, and the Managing Director was also suffering from health issues affecting his ability to attend to tax matters.

The reasons stated by the assessee have been considered sympathetically. However, the explanation furnished does not satisfactorily account for the entire period of delay. The order under appeal was served through the official Income Tax portal and the assessee was represented before the tax authorities. Merely stating that the order remained unnoticed cannot, by itself, constitute sufficient cause for condonation of such substantial delay, particularly when the assessee is expected to maintain proper systems for monitoring statutory proceedings and communications.

Further, although the assessee has referred to health issues and financial difficulties, no specific material has been brought on record to 4 establish that such circumstances completely prevented the assessee from taking steps for pursuing the appellate remedy within the prescribed period. The explanation also does not demonstrate continuous efforts or due diligence throughout the period of delay.

It is no doubt true that the expression "sufficient cause" is required to be construed liberally with a view to advance substantial justice. However, such liberal interpretation cannot result in condonation of delay where the explanation does not satisfactorily cover the entire period of delay or where there is lack of due diligence.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that the assessee has failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 656 days in filing the present appeal.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramlal and Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [AIR 1962 SC 361] has held that every day's delay must be explained and that delay which could have been avoided by due care and attention cannot constitute sufficient cause.

The laws of limitation are founded upon the principle that litigation must attain finality and that the law assists those who are vigilant about their rights. The delay cannot be condoned merely on considerations of sympathy or hardship unless sufficient cause is established.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.B. Ramalingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari has observed that the concept of "sufficient cause" is 5 flexible and each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances.

I am conscious that refusal to condone delay may result in dismissal of the appeal without adjudication on merits. However, the law of limitation is founded on sound public policy and once the prescribed period expires, the same cannot be ignored in the absence of satisfactory explanation.

On an overall appreciation of the facts, I find that the explanation furnished by the assessee does not satisfactorily explain the entire period of delay. The assessee has failed to demonstrate that sufficient cause existed for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period.

In view of the above discussion, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. Since the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned, the appeal is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed in limine.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.