MS GUPTA EMERALD MINES PVT LTD vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has not condoned the delay and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant- assessee.

Counsel for the appellant has framed the following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether the ld. ITAT was justified under law while rejecting the application for condonation of delay of the assessee-appellant for the AY 2006-07 and consequently dismissing the appeal in limine by not admitting for adjudication and not having a liberal construction in respect of sufficient cause of delay explained by the assessee. ii) Whether the ld. ITAT was justified under law while relying on complaint settled reply no. 111117-03284 which is hearsay document which inadmissible in (2 of 3) [ITA-169/2018] evidence and ignoring the prayer as well as affidavit of the assessee company in support of non-receipt of the CIT(A) order dated 21.02.2013. iii) Whether the ld. ITAT was justified under law while not considering the limitation period from date of knowledge i.e. 18.12.2013 of the CIT(A) order dated 21.02.2013 when the noticed for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) was received by the assessee-appellant from Assessing Officer?”

However, while considering the matter, the Tribunal has observed as under:- “In light of above, we are of the view that the submissions of the assessee company are merely self-serving statements, the veracity of which are established otherwise but also there is an inordinate delay of 246 days in filing the subject appeals. The assessee in its averments has not made out any case that there was reasonable cause which being beyond the control of the assessee, prevented it from filing the appeals in time before the Tribunal. The delay cannot be condoned merely because the assessee’s case calls for sympathy or merely out of benevolence. For the exercise of discretion in condoning the delay, it must be established beyond the shadow of doubt that the assessee was diligent and was not guilty of negligence on its part. Sufficient cause as contemplated in the limitation provisions must be a cause which is beyond the control of the assessee. In the case on hand, the factual matrix, in our view, clearly establishes that the delay was due to the negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee, which could have been avoided by the assessee if it had exercised due care and attention. Therefore, in our opinion, in the factual matrix of this case, there exists no sufficient and reasonable cause for the inordinate delay of 246 days in filing the subject appeals. In coming to this finding, we draw support from the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MST Katiji (supra), Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil (supra), and of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ganga Sahai Ram Swaroop (supra). The Coordinate Bench decision in case of Oracle India cited by the assessee has been duly considered and we find that the factual matrix different therein and it was a case lapse on the part of the consultant. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that, in the case on hand, the cause of substantial justice would not be served by condoning the inordinate delay of (3 of 3) [ITA-169/2018] 246 days in filing these appeals for which no cogent reasons have been given. We accordingly reject these petitions for condonation of delay for Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07. 4. In that view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises.

Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J (K.S.JHAVERI),J A.Sharma/245