SARA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTRE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(3)(2), MUMBAI

order dated 27/02/2015 of the CIT(A)- 22,Mumbai,the assessee has filed present appeal.Assessee-company, engaged in the business of research and development of pharmaceuticals formulations, filed its return of income on 26/09/2011 declaring total income at Rs.78.37 lakhs.The Assessing Officer(AO)completed the assessment u/s.143(3)of the Act, on 28/1/2014,determining its income at Rs.1.05 crores. 2.The assessee has filed an application for condoning the delay which is accompanied by an affidavit of the Director of the company .The Director, in his application,dtd.4/6/15,has stated that the assessee-company was in the process of seeking an informed opinion to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal that there was delay in filing the appeal, that delay was not malafide or intentional.In the affidavit,at para-4,the director has made following submissions: “The company was in process of seeking an opinion to file an appeal before the ITAT and thus completely overlooked the fact that the due date for filing an appeal before the ITAT has lapsed.” During the course of hearing before us,the Authorised Representative reiterated the submissions that were made by the Director of the company in his application and affidavit. 3.Before proceeding further,we would like to deal with the condoning the delay in filing the appeal.Principles governing the condonation of belated appeals stipulate that if sufficient cause for explaining delay is shown,Presiding Officers may condone the delay and admit the appeal.The expression 'sufficient cause' is not defined in the Act,but it means a cause which is beyond the control of an assessee.For invoking the aid of the section,any cause which 3529/M/15 M/s. Sara Research & Development Centre Pvt.Ltd.

prevents a person approaching the Tribunal within time is considered sufficient cause.In doing so,it is the test of reasonable man in normal circumstances which has to be applied.The test whether or not a cause is sufficient is to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. In other words, whether it is bona fide cause, inasmuch as nothing shall be deemed to be done bona fide or in good faith which is not done with due care and attention.What may be sufficient cause in one case may be otherwise in another.What is of essence is whether it was an act of prudent or reasonable man.Secondly,a very strong case on merits is not relevant for condonation of delay in filing the appeals.In belated appeals explanation of delay for the entire period is necessary.The cause pleaded should not only be a probable one,but it should be real and sufficiently reasonable.In short,in matters of delay it is neither practicable nor desirable to explain minute-to-minute or hour-to- hour delay,but delay has to be explained.Finally,what may be sufficient cause in one case may be otherwise in another.What is of essence is whether it is an act of prudent or reason - able man. Here,we would like to refer to the case of Madhu Dadha(317 ITR 458).In that matter The appeal filed by the assessee against the order of assessment before the First Appellate Authority(FAA) was dismissed. The assessee filed a belated appeal before the Tribunal along with an affidavit explaining the delay for filing the appeal.The Tribunal,after elaborately discussing the affidavit filed by the assessee and taking into consideration all aspects,rejected the appeal as the assessee had not given any sufficient reasons or cause for the delay in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. On further appeal the Hon’ble Madras High Court held as under: “…….. it was clear that the assessee had not explained the cause of delay in filing the appeal, …..The assessee had not taken a proper plea to show sufficient cause giving evidence and proof beyond reasonable doubt for the delay. There was no need to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.” Now,it would be useful to take notice of the fact of the case under consideration.The assessee-company is a corporate entity and is helped by the professionals.It was represented before the AO and the FAA by a chartered Accountant.It had filed the appeal before the FAA within the prescribed time limit.It clearly shows that the assessee is well aware of the time limit of filing the appeal before the appellate authorities. In the case under consideration,the assessee had given most vague and general reason for not filing the appeal in time. Appeal under the Act is a statutory right and the assessees /AO.s are supposed to file the appeals in time.It is stated in the affidavit that it was in the process of seeking an opinion.It has not been revealed that with whom the assessee was seeking the