ASHWIN J. SANGHVI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 36, MUMBAI

The assessee/Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee filed the present appeal in the year 2018. A perusal of the case records reveals that since the time this appeal has been filed, the assessee/AR of the assessee has been seeking repeated adjournments without making any serious effort to आअसं. 3874/मुं/2018 (िन.व.2009-10) (A.Y.2009-10) assist the Bench for disposal of the appeal. After 20.10.2020 none appeared to represent the assessee and the case was adjourned time and again. Notice of hearing was issued to the assessee through RPAD, however, the same remained un-responded. It seems that the assessee has no interest to pursue the present appeal, hence, this appeal is taken up for hearing with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative (DR) and the material available on record.

The appeal is time barred by 751 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. The reason given for the delay in filing of the appeal in the affidavit are as under: ‘‘An adverse Appellate order passed by the CIT A 53 Mumbai has been received by Assessee’s wife Sushma A Sanghavi at their residence address but got misplaced and misfiled with some other files and it was unattended too. Since the appellate order was misfiled, its slip out of the attention of the appellate and remained hidden and unnoticed and unacted upon. Under the identical circumstances causing delay, the appellate order from the CIT A 53 Mumbai for the subsequent assessment year of AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12 have been received by the assessee’s wife Smt. Sushma A. Sanghvi at her residence. There was some kind of domestic disturbance in the appellant’s own house. because of which Smt. Sushma Sanghvi had to also look after her ailing Mother in Law for the quite period of time besides her household chore.. an 22" November 2016, the appellant and his wife Smt. Sushma Sanghvi left for the USA in connection with the delivery of the married daughter Isha. The appellant return to India on 21% December 2016 where as appellant’s wife return after three months on: 12-03-2017 . Thereafter, the moment it was struck to Smt. Sushma Sanghvi and she informed the appellant about the receipt of appellant order, and an appeal before the honorable tribunal for the Ay 2010-11 and 2011-12 filed on 22-03-2017. In the view of the forth going circumstances, the appeal for the assessment year AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12 had been filed belatedly with a request for the आअसं. 3874/मुं/2018 (िन.व.2009-10) (A.Y.2009-10) condonation for 186 days AY 2010-11 and for 120 days for AY 2011-12 respectively. Until such time, further appeal to the Tribunal for the AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12 filed by the appellant, it was not known that an appellate order for the earlier AY 2009-10 has also been passed and received but un noticed and un traced. The appellant further submit that in the course of the appellate proceedings before the Honorable Tribunal SMC Bench, the appellant for the first time came to know when a specific query was raised by the Honorable Member about the fact of the appeal for the previous assessment of AY 2009-10 that the appellate order passed by the CIT A 53 Mumbai has also been received In the view of the aforesaid development, the appellant thereafter filed an application before the CIT for the duplicate copy of the CIT A order for AY 2009-10 on 13-10-2017. The duplicate order was received on 03-11-2017. And after seeking a legal opinion which still caused further delay in appeal for the AY 2009- 10 was finally filed on 01-06-2018. Requesting for the condonation of delay 750 days. The appellant Shri Ashwin Shangnvi state on the Oath that in this case the delay from late filling of appeal is comprising of two period.”

Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi representing the Department vehemently opposed application seeking condonation of delay. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has failed to explain delay in filing of the appeal.

Submissions made by ld. DR on the issue of condonation of delay heard and contents of the affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing of the appeal examined. A perusal of the affidavit reveals that the delay in filing of the present appeal has been attributed primarily to domestic disturbances in the family of the assessee. As per the affidavit impugned order passed by CIT(A)-53 was initially misplaced by the wife of assessee/appellant and thereafter due to domestic disturbances the wife of assessee forgot to inform the assessee about the order. The aforesaid reason given by the assessee causing delay does not inspire confidence to accept the reason as “reasonable cause”

आअसं. 3874/मुं/2018 (िन.व.2009-10) (A.Y.2009-10) resulting in inordinate delay of filing of the appeal. In affidavit it is also mentioned that the assessee and his wife thereafter travelled to USA to attend their daughter who was on the family way. The contents of the affidavit clearly indicates that the assessee was more involved in domestic affair and had least interested in business affair. The law comes to rescue of those who are diligent towards their duties and are vigilant of their rights. The assessee had to show bonafide reasons that has resulted in inordinate delay in filing of appeal.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramnath Sao Vs. Goverdhan Sao, 2002 AIR 1201 has held that while dealing with application seeking condonation of delay acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception, pedantic and hyper technical view of the matter and the explanation furnished should not be rejected when arguable points of facts are involved. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion, however, the discretion has to be exercised only where the assessee has been able to substantiate that the delay in filing of the appeal is for bonafide reasons. It is not the length of delay alone which should be decessible factor in condonation of delay. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable whereas in certain cases considerable delay can be condoned, if the explanation furnished appears to be bonafide and satisfactory.

In my considered view the reason given by the assessee causing delay in filing of present appeal does not fall within the meaning of expression ‘reasonable cause’. The inordinate delay of 751 days in filing of appeal is the result of negligence and casual approach of the assessee/appellant, hence, warrants no clemency.