M/s Punjab State Coop Milk Producers Federation Ltd., Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 1039/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6139 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Time period of passing order; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1039/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S PUNJAB STATE COOP MILK PRODUCERS VS. THE ITO, FEDERATION LTD., WARD 4(3), CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AAAAP1208Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI. M.R. SHARMA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. J.S. NAGAR DATE OF HEARING : 22/04/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/04/2014 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2013 OF LD. CIT(A), CHANDIGARH AGITAT ING THE DISMISSAL OF ITS APPEAL BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS DISMISSE D THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEING TIME BARRED BY 262 DAYS. IT WAS CON TENDED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT EARLIER THE ASSESSEE HAD DECIDED NOT TO FILE ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER D UE TO LEGAL POSITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS WAS ADVISED BY ITS COUNSEL. HOWEV ER, LATER ON THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT INTO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT SOME DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT LAYING DOWN THE LEGAL PROPOSITION WHICH WOULD SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE APPLICATION OBSERVED THAT SUCH TYPE OF GROUND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ANY 2 SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. HE, THE REFORE, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION PERIOD O F 262 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE IS THUS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E PARTIES. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT EARLIER THE LE GAL PROPOSITION WAS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, SO THE ASSESSEE DECIDED NOT TO FILE ANY A PPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, LATER ON THE COUNSEL B ROUGHT INTO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SOME DECISION HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WHICH MAY FAVOURABLY SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. I N OUR VIEW, SUCH TYPE OF GROUNDS NEITHER CONSTITUTE REASONABLE NOR SUFFICIEN T CAUSE. DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL CAN BE CONDONED IF THE ASSESSEE IS PREVENTED FOR ANY REASONABLE OR SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN PREFERRING THE APPEAL WITHIN TH E LIMITATION PERIOD. EVEN IN SOME CASES, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE APPLICANT IS BOUND TO EXPLAIN EACH DAYS DELAY. 4. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PREVENTED FR OM ANY SUFFICIENT OR REASONABLE CAUSE, RATHER THE ASSESSEE AS PER ITS OW N WILL OR ADVICE OF ITS CONSULTANT PREFERRED NOT TO FILE ANY APPEAL. ONLY BECAUSE, LATER ON ANY DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN ANY OTHER CASE HAS COM E INTO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE, THUS THE ASSESSEE DECIDED TO FILE THE AP PEAL DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT REASON OR CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY . IT IS NOT THE MERE WHIM OR WISH OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THE DELAY IN PREFERR ING THE APPEAL CAN BE CONDONED BUT THE ASSESSEE MUST SHOW AT LEAST SOME R EASONABLE CAUSE OR CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH PREVENTED IT FROM FILING THE AP PEAL IN TIME. THOUGH THE COURTS OF LAW ARE LIBERAL IN CONDONING THE DELAY ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT IN A CASE WHERE TECHNICALITIES ARE PITTED AGAINST THE SUBSTAN TIAL CAUSE OF JUSTICE, THE LATER SHOULD PREVAIL. HOWEVER, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT L AW OF LIMITATION SHOULD BE MADE REDUNDANT OR ITS PROVISIONS AND APPLICATION SH OULD BE IGNORED IN EACH AND 3 EVERY CASE. AFTER THE PASSING OF THE LIMITATION PE RIOD, AS PRESCRIBED BY THE LAW, FINALITY OF DECISION IS A VALUABLE RIGHT WHICH ACCR UES IN FAVOUR OF THE OTHER PARTY TO THE LITIGATION AND CANNOT BE DEFEATED BY ADOPTIN G A CASUAL APPROACH OR AT THE MERE WISH OF THE DEFAULTING PARTY. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL AND THE SAME IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.04.2014 SD/- SD/- (T.R. SOOD) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 28 TH APRIL, 2014 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT 3.THE CIT 4.THE CIT( A) 5.THE DR