JAGMANDRI FINVEST P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(2)(1), MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM
Per Saktijit Dey, VP:
The captioned appeals by the assessee, arise out of two separate orders, both dated
20.06.2014, by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), pertaining to the assessment years (A.Y.) 2007-08 and 2008-09. 2. The appeals have been filed more than two years beyond the prescribed period of limitation. To be precise, there is delay of 849 days in filing these appeals. Considering the issue of inordinate delay in filing the appeals, the parties, at the outset were heard on the issue of condonation of delay.
Having considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record on this preliminary issue, we have to examine whether the assessee has made out sufficient cause (A.Ys.2008-09 & 2007-08) Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) provides right to appeal, both, to the assessee as well as the Assessing Officer (AO) against certain orders which are appealable before the Tribunal as per the said provision. Thus, the right to appeal under the Act, is a statutory right, circumscribed by prescription of limitation as per sub-section (3) of section 254. The appeal has to be filed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of order appealed against. While explaining the cause of delay, the assessee through its Affidavit dated 18.06.2019 and subsequent submissions made before the Bench on 06.06.2025, has said that due to severe financial crisis, the assessee was unable to arrange fee for filing the appeals. It is further stated that in November, 2016, son of one of the Directors who happened to be an intern at USA made a remittance to have the appeal filed. In support of contention of financial crisis, the assessee has filed certain documents, such as, financial statements, bank statement of one of its Director’s, etc. The financial statements furnished before us do not demonstrate any severe financial crisis of the nature which could have prevented the assessee from making payment of fee of the Tribunal, amounting to Rs.10,000/- for each appeal aggregating to Rs.20,000/-. Further, on perusal of the bank statement of one of the Director’s, namely, Late Shri Dharmesh Agrawal, it is observed that from June, 2014 onwards on various dates the balance in the bank account was more than sufficient to meet the expenditure to be incurred for appeal fee. Further, the assessee has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that the appeal fee could only be paid in November, 2016, after receiving remittance from the son of one of the Directors. No documentary evidence at all has been furnished by the assessee to establish such fact. It is hard to believe that the assessee was not in a position to incur even an expenditure of (A.Ys.2008-09 & 2007-08) Rs.20,000/- to pay the appeal fee. Thus, in our view, the plea of financial crisis taken by the assessee to explain the delay is only a make-believe story without any substance.
While this bench respectfully agrees with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs Mst. Katiji & Ors 1987 SCR (2) 387, however, at the same time, it cannot be overlooked that as per the provision contained under sub section (5) of section 253 of the Act, the Tribunal has powered to condoned the delay only when it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. In case of Office Of The Chief Post Master & Ors vs Living Media India Ltd.& Anr 2012 SC 1506, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while refusing to condone the delay, has observed that the law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. In case of Union of India vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) (SLP (Civil) No. 21096 of 2019), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment dated 03.04.2024 has observed that delay should not be excluded as a matter of generosity. Rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite party. Therefore, while seeking condonation of delay, the party has to prove that it was reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter. In the facts of the present appeal, no material has been placed on record to establish the theory of financial crisis which prevented the assessee from filing the appeals. The financial statements including balance sheets of the assessee do not make out a case of acute financial crisis so as to incapacitate the assessee from incurring the appeal filing fee of Rs.20,000/-. Thus, in our considered opinion, the assessee has failed to make out sufficient cause for explaining the delay in filing the appeals. (A.Ys.2008-09 & 2007-08) Mumbai; Dated : 20.06.2025 Roshani, Sr. PS
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER,
(Dy./Asstt.