Sh. Surjit Singh, Chandigarh V. CIT II, Chandigarh

ITA 1073/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 107321514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D S SIDHU
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Question of law; Reasonable cause; Assessment record; Time period of passing order; Condonation of delay
• Section: 40A(3); 263; 63; 144; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT & MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1073/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SH. SURJIT SINGH, VS. THE CIT-II, PROP. M/S SAINI BARTAN BHANDAR, CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AYDPS1035L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SH. D.S. SIDHU DATE OF HEARING : 10.09.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23. 09.2015 ORDER PER H.L.KARWA, VP THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF CIT-II CHANDIGARH PASSED U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 19 61 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOL LOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS WR ONGLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT T O SET- ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2010 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN AS MUCH AS THE ORDER IS NEITHE R ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENU E AND AS SUCH THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 2 63 OF THE ACT IS BEYOND HIS COMPETENCE. 2 2. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAVING BEEN PASSED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE VARIOUS REPLIES, MATERIAL ON RECORD AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ACTION RESORTED TO BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS UNWARRANTED AND UNCAL LED FOR. 3. THAT THE REASONS MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FOR INITIATION OF PROCEE DINGS UNDER SECTION 263 ARE BASED ON SUSPICION, CONJECTUR ES AND SURMISES WITH NO MATERIAL WHATSOEVER ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ACTION SO INITIATED WHICH, IN ANY CASE, HAS DULY BEEN COUNTERED DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDING S BEFORE HIM CLEARLY ESTABLISHING THAT THE ORDER SOUGHT TO B E REVISED IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERES T OF REVENUE. 3. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF COMPLETE 184 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH APPL ICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALONGWITH AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI AJAY CHOUHAN HAS BEEN FILED. BEFORE DISPOSING OF THE ABOVE APPLICATION WE THINK IT NECESSARY TO N ARRATE THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE SALE / PURCHASE B USINESS, KITCHEN AND HOUSEHOLD UTENSILS. DURING THE YEAR IN QUESTION, THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED RS. 11,79,500/- IN THE INDDUSIND BANK LTD., PHASE III-B -2, MOHALI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE S OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK INCLUDING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 7,50,000/- ON 10.3.2008. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 7,50,000/- TO BE OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF HIS 12 CATTLES AND SOME AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENTS TO ONE SHR I GURMIT SINGH. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED AN AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI GURMIT SINGH, RESIDENT 3 OF VILLAGE FATHEULLAPUR, TEHSIL, KHARAR, DISTT. MOH ALI. WITH REFERENCE TO THE BALANCE AMOUNT, IT WAS STATED THAT THE SAME WAS DEP OSITED OUT OF SALES OF HIS BUSINESS OF UTENSILS. THE STATEMENT OF SHRI GURMI T SINGH WAS ALSO RECORDED ON 23.12.2010 WHEREIN HE ADMITTED THE PURCHASE OF AGRI CULTURAL EQUIPMENTS FROM THE ASSESSEE BY MAKING CASH PAYMENT OF RS. 7,50,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND, HENCE , NO ADDITION WAS MADE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,000/- U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT OBSERVING THAT FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY AGRICULTURAL OR DIARY INCOME. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT EVEN THE EVIDENCE REGARDING OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OR AGRICUL TURAL EQUIPMENTS AND CATTLE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PLACED ON RECORD. ACCORDING TO LD. CIT, NO INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE AFFIRMATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI GURMIT SINGH ABOUT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON SPECIFIC DATES. THE COMM ISSIONER ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 17.10.2011 TO THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONS IDERING THE REPLY AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT MAKING PROP ER ENQUIRIES IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVE NUE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE CIT CANCELLED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2010 AN D DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FRAME FRESH ASSESSMENT AFTER CARRYING OU T THE PROPER INVESTIGATION AND AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. CIT PASSED THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 21.3.2013. THE DATE OF COMMUTATION OF THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST IS 27.3.2 013. IN OTHER WORDS, THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 27.3 .2013. AS PER SECTION 253 OF THE ACT, ANY ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER PA SSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX U/S 263, SHALL FILE APPEAL BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL WITHIN 60 DAYS ON THE 4 DATE OF WHICH THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED AGAIN ST IS COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ASSESSEE WAS OBLIGED TO FILE T HE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON OR BEFORE 25.3.2013. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FILED TH E APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 26.11.2013. THUS, THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY COMPLETE 184 DAY S. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, WHICH READ S AS UNDER:-- 10'' OF JULY, 2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BEN CH, CHANDIGARH (BENCH - B) SHRI SURJIT SINGH, PROP: M S SAINI BARTAN BHANDAR. CHANDIGARH. VS. APPELLANT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH. IN THE MATTER OF ITA NO. 1073/CHANDI/2013 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 FIXED FOR HEARING ON THE 15 LH OF JULV, 2015. APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE ABOVE INCOME TAX APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.03.2013 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT BY T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -II. CHANDIGARH WAS FILED ON 26.11.2013 WHICH WAS LATE BY 184 DAYS. 2. THAI THE APPELLATE ORDER WAS RECEIVED ON 27.0 3.2013 AND AS SUCH THE APPEAL WAS TO BE FILED BY 25.05.2013. 3. THAT SHRI AJAY CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE MY LOCAL COU NSEL WAS ENTRUSTED WITH THE DOCUMENTS FOR FILING OF APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. 4. THAT HE SHIFTED HIS OFFICE FROM SCO 1086-87, BASEMENT, SECTOR 22, CHANDIGARH TO HIS RESIDENCE KOTHI NUMBER 7194, NEW SUNNY ENCLAVE. SECTOR 125, MOHALI IN THE MONTH OF APRIL 2013, 5. THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SHIFTING, CERTAIN F ILES INCLUDING MY FILE ALONG WITH ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 GOT MISPL ACED. 6. THAT SUBSEQUENTLY I ENQUIRED FROM SH. AJAY CH AUHAN REGARDING THE STATUS OF APPEAL AND AT THAT POINT OF IT CAME TO LI GHT THAT THE APPEAL HAD NOT BEEN FILED. 7. THAI THE FILE WAS TRACED SOMEWHERE IN THE LAS T WEEK OF NOVEMBER 2013 AS IT WAS TAGGED WITH SOME OLHER BUNDLE OF FIL ES. 5 8. THAT IMMEDIATE / CORRECTIVE MEASURE WAS INITIA TED AND I CONTACTED SH. TEJ MOHAN SINGH ADVOCATE FOR FILING OF APPEAL A ND THE SAME WAS FILED THOUGH BELATEDLY ON 26.11.2013 . 9. THAT THE APPEAL IN MY CASE COULD NOT BE FILED IN TIME BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH DUE TO N EGLIGENCE AND OVERSIGHT IN THE OFFICE OF MY COUNSEL SH. AJAY CHAU HAN. 10. THAT THERE BEING NO MALA FIDE INTENTION OF NOT FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE DELAY BE CONDONED. . 11. THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI AJAY CHAUHAN. ADVOCA TE IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. IT IS THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THE DELAY BE CONDONED THERE BEING A REASONABLE CAUSE AND IN THE IN INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, THE APPEAL BE HEARD ON MERITS. SD/- (SURJIT SINGH) PROP: M/S SAINI BURTAN BHANDAR, CHANDIGARH. THROUGH SD/- (TEJ MOHAN SINGH) APPELLANT FOR: SHRI SURJIT SINGH. PROP: M/S SAINI BARTAN BHANDAR, CHANDIGARH. END: AS ABOVE. 6. IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE APPLICATION, AN AFFIDAVI T OF SHRI AJAY CHAUHAN ADVOCATE (AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ) IS ALSO FILED, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- AFFIDAVIT I, AJAY CHAUHAN S/O SH RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN R/O KOTHI NUMBER 7194, NEW SUNNY ENCLAVE. SECTOR 125 MOHALI DO HEREB Y SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND DECLARE AS UNDER:- I . THAI 1 AM AN ADVOCATE BY PROFESSION. 2. THAT I WAS THE AUTHORIZED ADVOCATE IN THE CASE OF SH. SURJIT SINGH PROP. M/S SAINI BARTAN BHANDAAR, 6 3. THAT I SHIFTED MY OFFICE FROM SCO 1086-87, BA SEMENT, SECTOR 22 CHANDIGARH TO MY RESIDENCE AT ABOVE MENTIONED AD DRESS IN THE MONTH OF APRIL 2013. 4. DURING SHIFTING, CERTAIN FILES INCLUDING THAT OF M/S SAINI BARLAN BHANDAAR GOT MISPLACED ALONG WITH ORDER ISSU ED U/S 263. 5. THAT IT WAS ONLY WHEN (HE ASSESSEE APPROACHED ME TO ASK ABOUT THE STAINS OF APPEAL, IT CAME TO NOTICE THAT THE APPEAL HAD NOT BEEN FILED, 6. THAT CORRECTIVE MEASURES WERE TAKEN AND THE FI LE WAS TRACED SOMEWHERE IN THE LAST WEEK OF NOVEMBER 2013 WHICH H AD BEEN INADVERTENTLY TAGGED WITH SOME OTHER BUNDLES. 7. THAT THE FILE WAS IMMEDIATELY GIVEN TO THE ASS ESSEE WHO CONTACTED SH. TEJ MOHAN SINGH ADVOCATE FOR FILING O F APPEAL. 8. THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL IS ATTRIBUT ABLE TO MY OFFICE WHICH IS HIGHLY REGRETTED. SD/- DEPONENT VERIFICATION: - VERIFIED THAT THE ABOVE NOTED CONTENTS OF MY AFFIDA VIT ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF AND NOTHING HAS BEEN CONCEALED THEREIN. SD/- DEPONENT PLACE: DATED: 28 JAN 2015 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE ALS O PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFIC IENT CAUSE FROM FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN TIME DUE TO REASONS M ENTIONED IN THE APPLICATION 7 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY THE AFFIDAVIT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT JURISDICTION TO CONDON E DELAY SHOULD BE EXERCISED LIBERALLY. THE MATTER RELATING TO CONDONATION OF DE LAY SHOULD BE JUDGED BROADLY AND NOT IN A PEDANTIC MANNER. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI D. S. SIDHU, LD. DR SU BMITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY THERE IS A DELAY OF 184 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IF CONDONED, MAY DEFEAT VERY PURPOSE OF LIMITATION PER IOD PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF DELAY OF FEW DAYS. ACCORDING TO HIM, THIS SUBSTANTIAL DELAY IS CONDONED THEN THERE IS NO MEANING OF LIMITATION PERIOD. SHRI D.S. SIDHU, LD. DR ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.12.2013 PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF CIT PASSED U/S 263 OF THE AC T DATED 21.3.2011. HE ALSO REFERRED TO PARA 2 OF THE CIT ORDER, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 2. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD, IT WAS NO TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH ON DIFFERENT DATES TOTA LING TO RS. 11,79,500/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE 'LNDUS IND BANK, PHASE 3B2, MOHALI. THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK INCLUDING AN AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT OF RS. 7,50,000/-- O N 10.03.2008. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF RS. 7,50,000/- TO BE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF HIS 12 CATTIES AND SOME AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENTS TO ONE SH. GURMEET SINGH AND IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM FILED AFFIDAVIT OF SH. GURMEET SINGH. IN HIS STATEM ENT DATED 23.12.2010 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SH. GURMEE T SINGH STATED AS, I AM AN AGRICULTURIST. I HAVE STUDIED T ILL 10 TH & I WORK ON AGRICULTURAL LAND IN FATEHULLAPUR' AND IN RESPON SE TO QUERY ABOUT AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY HIM, HE STATED AS' 3 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE NAME OF MY FATHER. WHEAT, VEGETABLES, 8 POTATO, RICE ETC. IS GROWN AND APPROXIMATELY 4,50,0 00 TO 5,00,000/-DURING THE YEAR IS THE SALE'. HE HAD FURT HER STATED AS, 'I HAD TAKEN 3 LACS FROM ARHTIYA, SH. LABHU CHAND O F KHARAR(ADDRTESS I DO NOT KNOW), AND REMAINING AMOUN T FORM SALE OF PADDIES, SAVINGS AND LOAN FROM RELATIVES. SHRI D.S. SIDHU, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT SHRI AJAY CHAUHAN ADVOCATE APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 5.4.2013 WHEN THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN PURSUANCE TO THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 BY CIT WERE P ENDING. THUS, IT WAS WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS COUNSEL SHRI AJAY CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE THAT AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT IS TO BE FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN 60 DAYS, BUT NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. IT APPEARS THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS WAITING FOR THE OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER. WHEN IT CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS COUNS EL, THAT THEY WOULD NOT GET THE FAVOURABLE DECISION FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AFTER THE DELAY OF ABOUT 184 DAYS. THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED A FEW DAYS PRIOR TO THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 / 144 OF THE ACT. IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDO NATION OF DELAY AND AFFIDAVIT, THE ASSESSEE HAS DELIBERATELY OMITTED TO MENTION TH E FACT THAT HE WAS ATTENDING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PURSUAN CE TO THE ORDER OF CIT PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. IN THE AFFIDAVIT, SHRI AJAY CH AUHAN HAS STATED THAT DURING SHIFTING OF HIS OFFICE FROM SECTOR 22, CHANDIGARH T O HIS RESIDENCE LOCATED AT NEW SUNNY ENCLAVE, SECTOR 125, MOHALI, CERTAIN FILES IN CLUDING THAT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE MISPLACED ALONGWITH ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. IN OUR OPINION, THIS CONTENTION OF THE DEPONENT SHRI AJAY CHAUHAN IS MER ELY AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND MAKE-BELIEF STORY CREATED BY THE ASSESSEE TO COVER UP THE DELAY. WHEN SHRI AJAY CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE WAS ATTENDING THE PROCEEDINGS BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE WAS HAVING FULL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE LIMITATION P ERIOD FOR FILING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. IT AP PEARS THAT NO EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS REGARD. IT IS A FACT THAT COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT DATED 9 21.3.2013 WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT MADE ANY EFFORT TO OBTAIN A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER FROM LD. CIT. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE SAYS THAT THE ORDER WAS TRACED IN THE LAST WEEK OF NOVEMBER 2013. AS WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED HERE-IN-ABOVE, TH AT REASONS ASSIGNED FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL ARE MERELY AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND A MAKE-BELIEF STORY CREATED BY THE ASSESSEE TO COVER UP THE DELAY. IT IS ALSO OBSE RVED THAT APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL A FEW DAYS PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN PURSUANCE TO THE ORDER OF CIT PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THE FACTS NARRATED HEREINABOVE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THE EXPLANATIO N TENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE CLAI MED DELAY RATHER IT IS A CASE OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE / INACTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSE SSEE. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT RIGOURS OF LIMITATION MUST APPLY WHERE THE STATURE SO PROVIDES, LIMITATION CANNOT BE CONDONED ON COMPASSION OR EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIO N OR WHERE THE APPROACH OF THE APPELLANT IS CALLOUS. THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARY ANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAM MOHAN KABRA (2002) 257 ITR 773 (P&H) OB SERVED (HEAD NOTE) AS UNDER:- WHERE THE LEGISLATURE SPELLS OUT A PERIOD OF LIMIT ATION AND PROVIDES FOR POWER TO CONDONE THE DELAY AS WELL, SU CH DELAY CAN BE CONDONED ONLY FOR SUFFICIENT AND GOOD REASON S SUPPORTED BY COGENT AND PROPER EVIDENCE. IT IS A SE TTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE SP ECIFIED PERIOD OF LIMITATION MUST BE APPLIED WITH THEIR RIGOUR AND EFFECTIVE CONSEQUENCES. AUTHORITIES EXERCISING QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS IN DISCHARGE OF THEIR STATUTORY FUNCTIONS, INEVITABLY HAVE TO BE VESTED WITH SOME ELEMENT OF DISCRETION IN EXERCISE OF SUCH POWERS. MERELY BECAUSE ANOTHER VIEW WAS POSSIBLE OR PERMISSIBLE ON THE SAME FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, TH AT PER SE, WOULD NOT MAKE SUCH CONTROVERSY A QUESTION OF LAW . SO LONG AS SUCH DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF LAW AND IS APPARENTLY A PRUDENT ONE, T HE COURT WOULD NORMALLY BE RELUCTANT TO INTERFERE IN SUCH EX ERCISE OF DISCRETION. ONCE THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY APPLIES IT S MIND AND 10 DECLINES TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL FOR GOOD AND APPROPRIATE REASONS, IT CANNOT GIVE RISE TO A QUEST ION OF LAW. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE ABO VE CASE HELD AS UNDER:- THAT SPECIFIC REASONS HAD BEEN GIVEN BY THE TRIBUN AL FOR REFUSAL TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL W HICH WERE NOT ONLY LOGICAL BUT REFLECTED THE CONDUCT OF THE D EPARTMENT BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES IN NOT PRODUCING THE RECORD INSPITE OF SEEKING TIME. NO QUESTION OF LAW AROSE FROM THE ORD ER. 9. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IT IS REQUIRED TO BE SEEN THAT AS TO WHETHER THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DE LAY ARE BONAFIDE AND ALSO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTED WITH REASONABLE DILI GENCE AND ALSO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN 60 DAYS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE REASONS GIVEN BY TH E ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY MATERIAL. IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE HAS DELIBERATELY PUT THE BLAME OF NEGLIGENCE OR INACTION ON HIS AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHRI AJAY CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE. EVEN IF THERE WAS ANY INACT ION ON HIS PART, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY OF EACH DAY. IN THIS CASE, THERE IS INORDINATE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. A DISTINCTION HAS TO BE MADE BET WEEN INORDINATE DELAYS AND WHERE THE CASE IS OF FEW DAYS AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS TO EXERCISE THE DISCRETION ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE. WE OBSERVE THAT IN THE PR ESENT CASE, THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. AS WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED HEREIN ABOVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON A NY EVIDENCE OR REASONS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT HE WAS PREVENTED BY INEVITABLE CIR CUMSTANCES OR THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL IN TIM E, WHICH IS LATE BY 184 DAYS. IT IS A SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE SPECIFIED PERIOD OF LIMITATION MUST BE APPLIED WITH THEIR RIGOUR AND EF FECTIVE CONSEQUENCES. 11 10. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE HOLD THAT THE REASONS FOR DELAY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AR E WITHOUT ANY BASIS. EVEN OTHERWISE, A LINE HAS TO BE DRAWN BETWEEN THE BONA FIDE LITIGANT AND WHO CONCOCTED THE STORY ON THE BASIS OF AFTERTHOUGHT. I N VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE WHERE DELAY CAN BE CONDON ED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING ANY FINDINGS ON MERITS OF THE CASE. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.09.2015 SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2015 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR 12