Gopal Cold Storage, Tal.Anand V. The ACIT.,C.C.-2, Baroda

ITA 1728/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0255 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-08-2010
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: J P SHAH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 153A; 144

Judgement Text

- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND D.C.AGRAWAL, A M GOPAL COLD STORAGE, LAMBHVEL, TAL. ANAND. VS. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BARODA. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI J. P. SHAH, A.R. REVENUEBY:- SHRI R. K. DHANESTA, DR O R D E R PER D. C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THESE ARE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE FIRM THROUGH ONE SMT. GEETA S. PATEL, PARTNER, TWO FOR ASST. YEARS 2000-01 & 2001- 02 UNDER SECTION 153A R.W.S.144 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AND ONE FOR ASST . YEAR 1999-00 BEING THE REGULAR APPEAL.. 2. ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE LATE BY 317 DAYS. AN A PPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN FILED, WHICH READS AS UNDER :- TO HON. MEMBERS, THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD. DEAR SIRS, SUB: REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL IN CASE OF GOPAL COLD STORAGE, LAMBHAVEL VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BARODA FOR ASST. ITA NOS.1727, 1728 & 1730/AHD/2008 ASST. YEARS :1999-00-2001-02 ITA NOS.1727, 1728 & 1739/AHD/2008 ASST. YEARS1999-00 2001-02 2 YEAR 1999-00, ASST. YEAR 2000-01 AND ASST. YEAR 200 1-02. CIT(A) ORDER SERVED ON 5/5/2007. MYSELF, GEETA SURESH PATEL, PARTNER IN GOPAL COLD S TORAGE (FIRM), I AM NOT A WORKING PARTNER OF THE SAID PARTNERSHIP FIRM. BEING A SLEEPING PARTNER OF THE FIRM, I WAS NOT AWARE ABOUT THE BUSI NESS AFFAIRS AND ACCOUNTS OF THE FIRM. A SEARCH ACTION WAS CARRIED OUT ON 8/10/2003 COVERI NG THE RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PREMISES OF SURESH TOBACCOO GROUP OF C ASES. AFTER THE SEARCH, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE TAKEN UP U/ S 153A RWS 144 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AND VARIOUS DETAILS WERE CALLED FO R BY THE AO. SINCE ALL THE ACCOUNTS WERE SEIZED, THE THEN CHARTERED ACCOUN TANT WAS NOT CO- OPERATING AND THE OTHER PARTNERS WERE HAVING DIFFER ENCE OF OPINION TO THE EXTENT OF NON-TALKING TERMS, I COULD NOT FURNISH TH E REQUISITE DETAILS AS CALLED FOR DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THIS RESULTED INTO HEAVY TAX LIABILITY DUE TO EXTRAVAGANT ADDITIONS IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDERS. I WAS AGAIN SERVED WITH THE NOTICES FOR RECOVERY AF TER CIT APPEALS DECISION. TO PROTECT MY INTEREST, I AM TRYING TO CO LLECT INFORMATION TO THE POSSIBLE EXTENT FROM VARIOUS SOURCES. IN THIS PROCE SS, I LOST TRACK OF THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING OF APPEAL IN ITAT AND THEREFO RE I REQUEST YOUR HONOUR TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEALS IN THE IN TEREST OF JUSTICE. THANKING YOU, YOURS FAITHFULLY, FOR M/S GOPAL COLD STORAGE SD/- SMT. GEETA SURESH PATEL PARTNER. IN ADDITION TO THIS, AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 8.7.2008 HA S BEEN FILED WHICH ALSO READS AS UNDER :- AFFIDAVIT THE CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL BEFORE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD. ITA NOS.1727, 1728 & 1739/AHD/2008 ASST. YEARS1999-00 2001-02 3 IN THE MATTER OF GOPAL COLD STORAGE, ASST. YEAR 199 9-2000-01 AND 2001- 02. AFFIDAVIT OF SMT. GITABEN SURESHBHAI PATEL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, WIFE OF SHRI SURESHBHAI C. PATEL, PARTNER OF FIRM GOPAL COLD STORAGE CARRYING BUSINESS AT LAMBHVEL ROAD, NEAR TAKSHILA VIDYALAYA, ANAND. 1. THAT I AM SLEEPING PARTNER OF THE ABOVE REFERRED FI RM CARRYING ON ITS BUSINESS AT ANAND. 2. THAT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2000-01, 2003-04 AND 2005-0 6 AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE CIT(A) WHICH WAS DISPOSED O F BY HIM BY HIS ORDER DATED 10.01.2007 FOR ALL THE THREE ASSESS MENT YEARS. 3. THAT THE TIME OF FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS EXPIRED ON 10.03.2007. 4. THAT THE APPEAL PAPERS INCLUDING THE GROUNDS OF APP EAL THE MEMO OF APPEAL, CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDERS OF CIT(A) AND THE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE DULY PREPARED BY 10.03.20 07. 5. THAT DUE TO LACK OF CO-ORDINATION BETWEEN THE PARTN ERS OF GOPAL COLD STORAGE, THE APPEAL DOCUMENTS COULD NOT BE FIL ED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF 60 DAYS AND DELAY OF 317 D AYS HAS OCCURRED. 6. THAT THE APPEAL COULD NOT FILED BE IN DUE COURSE DU E TO VARIOUS DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTNERS. 7. THAT IT IS NOW DEMANDED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO FIL E THE APPEAL SO AS TO RESOLVE THE MATTERS AND SAFEGUARD MY INTER EST. DEPONENT: S.P. GITA S. PATEL I, THE ABOVE NAMED DEPONENT, DO HEREBY VERIFY THAT THE CONTENTS OF PARAS 1 TO 7 ABOVE ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE A ND BELIEF. SIGNED AND VERIFIED THIS ON THE 8 TH DAY OF JULY, 2008. DEPONENT S.P. GITA S. PATEL ITA NOS.1727, 1728 & 1739/AHD/2008 ASST. YEARS1999-00 2001-02 4 3. THE LD. AR ARGUED THE MATTER AT LENGTH SUBMITTIN G THAT IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DELAY SHOULD BE CON DONED. HE RELIED ON FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS :- 1. SUPREME COURTS ORDER IN N. BALKRISHNAN DT.3.9.9 8 (1998) 7 SCC 123. 2. SUPREME COURTS ORDER IN RAM NATH SAO ALIAS RAM NATH SAHU & ORS. DT.27.2.2002 (2002) 3 SCC 195 3. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTS ORDER OF AUTO CENTRE DATED 12.5.2005 (2005) 278 ITR 291 (ALL) 4. GUJARAT HIGH COURTS ORDER OF G.S.F.C. LTD. DT.1 .2.2005 (2006) 283 ITR 149 (GUJ) 5. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTS ORDER OF BHARAT AUTO CENT RE, DT.8.7.2005 (2006) 282 ITR 366 (ALL) 6. TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ITA NO.2390/A/1996 DT.19.12. 2001 FOR ASST. YEAR 1992-93 OF KAILPAR CREDIT & MERCANTILE P . LTD. 7. TRIBUNALS COMMON ORDER IN ITA 3676 TO 3683/2004 OF CHANDRAVADAN A. TAKTAWALA FOR ASST. YEAR 19975-76, 1982- 83 DT.21.6.2005 4. AGAINST THIS, THE LD. DR STRONGLY OPPOSED THE CO NDONATION OF DELAY ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED WHO A RE PARTNERS IN THE FIRM, WHY OTHER WORKING PARTNERS HAVE NOT COME UP TO FILE THE APPEALS AND APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. FURTHER REGAR DING ALLEGED DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTNERS THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THER E IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD AS TO HOW IT HAS PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE FIRM FROM FILING THE APPEALS. FURTHER, THE FACTS STATED IN THE APPLICATI ON FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND AFFIDAVIT ARE QUITE CONTRADICTORY. IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). THE CAUSE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUFFICIENT, RATHER IT IS DIL ATORY TACTICS OR UTTER NEGLIGENCE IN FILING THE APPEALS. THE LD. DR DISTIN GUISHED THE AUTHORITIES CITED BY THE LD. AR AND SUBMITTED THAT DECISIONS IN THOSE CASES ARE GIVEN ON DIFFERENT FACTS MATRIX. ITA NOS.1727, 1728 & 1739/AHD/2008 ASST. YEARS1999-00 2001-02 5 5. THE LD. AR IN REJOINDER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE W ORKING PARTNERS ARE HAVING DISPUTE WITH EACH OTHER AND THE DEPARTMENT H AS PUT UP THE BURDEN OF ENTIRE TAX ON THE LADY AND SHE HAD COME UP IN AP PEAL. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE FACTS NARRATE D SHOWING SUFFICIENT CAUSE ARE NOT CONVINCING. IN THE APPLICATION FOR CO NDONATION OF DELAY AS REFERRED ABOVE, IT IS STATED THAT ORDER OF LD. CIT( A) WAS RECEIVED ON 5.5.2007 WHEREAS IN THE AFFIDAVIT AS FILED IT IS ST ATED THAT ALL THE APPEAL PAPERS INCLUDING THE COPY OF ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WE RE DULY PREPARED BY 10.03.2007. THIS IS CONTRADICTORY AS TO THE RECEIPT OF LD. CIT(A)S ORDER WHICH IS NOT CLARIFIED. SECONDLY THE DETAILS AS TO WHO ARE THE PARTNERS IN THE FIRM AND WHO ARE NON-WORKING PARTNERS ARE NOT F ORTH COMING TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS. THE LD. AR HAS SOUGHT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THERE WAS DISPUTE AMONG THE PARTNERS . HE HAS FILED A COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY ONE SHRI CHHAGANBHAI CHHOT ABHAI PATEL AGAINST NAGINBHAI CHHOTABHAI PATEL, BEFORE THE DEPUTY COLLE CTOR, PETLAD. HOWEVER, THIS PETITION DOES NOT SHOW ANY SUBSTANTIV E NATURE OF DISPUTE IN RELATION TO THE FINANCE OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM SO AS TO MAKE US BELIEVE THAT THE WORKING PARTNERS WOULD NOT COME FORWARD TO TAKE UP THE RESPONSIBILITY OF FILING THE APPEALS. FURTHER, NEI THER, SHRI CHHAGANBHAI CHHOTABHAI PATEL NOR SHRI NAGINBHAI CHHOTABHAI PATE L ARE PARTNERS IN THE FIRM, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT DISPUTE PUT UP BY THESE TWO PERSONS BEFORE DY. COLLECTOR HAD ANY EFFECT OVER THE BUSINE SS OF THE FIRM. THIRDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CO-OPERATED BEFORE THE AO AND HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS NOR ATTENDED BEFORE HIM RESULTING IN EX PAR TE ORDER, WHICH SHOWS ASSESSEES NON-CO-OPERATIVE ATTITUDE AND APPROACH O F NEGLECTING TAX MATTERS. FOURTHLY, IT IS NOT MADE CLEAR WHY THE WOR KING PARTNERS WHOSE IDENTITIES ARE NOT DISCLOSED, CHOSE TO PUT FORWARD THE LADY PARTNER WHO IS ITA NOS.1727, 1728 & 1739/AHD/2008 ASST. YEARS1999-00 2001-02 6 NON-WORKING PARTNER SHE HAS CLAIMED THAT SHE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE WORKING OF THE FIRM AND FINANCE THEREOF. ACCORDINGL Y, WE ARE NOT SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS ANY CASE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEALS IN TIME. QUESTION OF CONSIDERING IT WHETHER SUFFICIENT OR NOT WOULD NOT ARISE. 7. EVEN THOUGH IN THE MATTER OF CONDONATION OF DELA Y A PRAGMATIC VIEW SHOULD BE ADOPTED AND A LIBERAL APPROACH SHOUL D BE TAKEN BUT WHERE IT IS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT COMING WITH A CLEA N HANDS IT IS DIFFICULT TO EXERCISE THE DISCRETION IN ITS FAVOUR. WE ARE NOT C ONVINCED THAT A NON- WORKING PARTNER, RATHER SLEEPING PARTNER WOULD BE A BLE TO ADVANCE CAUSE OF JUSTICE WHEN REASONS FOR THE WORKING PARTNERS NO T COMING FORWARD, ARE NOT EXPLAINED. THE ALLEGED DISPUTE IS SHOWN BETWEEN THE WORKING PARTNERS BUT NONE OF THEM IS COMING FORWARD TO ADMIT THAT TH ERE IS FAMILY DISPUTE AND THEY WERE UNABLE TO PREPARE THE PAPERS FOR FILI NG THE APPEALS. ON THE OTHER HAND AFFIDAVIT SAYS THAT APPEAL PAPERS WERE P REPARED BY 10.03.2007 (AS EXPLAINED IN POINT 4 OF THE AFFIDAVIT FURNISHED BY SMT. S.P.GITA S. PATEL, SLEEPING PARTNER) THEN THERE WAS NO REASON T O SEND THOSE PAPERS AROUND 16.5.2008 ON WHICH DATE THEY WERE HANDED OVE R TO THE TRIBUNAL. NOT BEING ABLE TO PREPARE THE APPEAL PAPERS IS ONE THING AND NOT TO GET THEM DISPATCHED IS ANOTHER THING. IT IS APPARENTLY NEGLIGENCE OR CALLOUSNESS IN NOT BEING ABLE TO DISPATCH THE PAPER S TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR NEARLY A YEAR. NO DOUBT THE CAUSE SHOWN BY THE ASSE SSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN A LIBERAL INTERPRETATION. BUT WHERE CAUSE SHOWN HAS NO RELEVANCY TO REASONABLENESS, THE DELAY COULD NOT BE CONDONED. IT IS MADE CLEAR IN SEVERAL DECISIONS OF THE COURTS SUCH AS IN SURENDRA KUMAR BOVEJA VS. CWT (2006) 287 ITR 52 (DEL) THAT SUFFICIENT CAUSE WOULD MEAN A CAUSE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PARTY I.E. A MISTAKE MADE IN GOOD FAITH IN RESPECT OF EXERCISE OF DUE CARE AND ATTENTION, BUT WHERE THERE IS WANT OF ITA NOS.1727, 1728 & 1739/AHD/2008 ASST. YEARS1999-00 2001-02 7 DUE CARE AND ATTENTION OR WANT OF DUE DILIGENCE THE N THERE CANNOT BE A SUFFICIENT CAUSE WARRANTING CONDONATION OF DELAY. 8.1. NOW COMING TO VARIOUS DECISIONS REFERRED TO BY LD. AR THE FIRST AUTHORITY SUPREME COURTS ORDER IN N. BALKRISHNAN DT.3.9.98 (1998) 7 SCC 123 IT IS HELD THAT THE WORDS SUFFICIENT CAUSE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY ACCEPTABILITY OF EXPLANATION FOR THE DEL AY IS THE SOLE CRITERIOR, LENGTH OF DELAY NOT RELEVANT. IN ABSENCE OF ANYTHIN G SHOWING MALA FIDE OR DELIBERATE DELAY AS A DILATORY TACTIC, COURT SHOULD NORMALLY CONDONE THE DELAY. IN THE PRESENT CASE WE NOTICE THAT AVOIDANCE BY THE WORKING PARTNERS WHO HAVE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF WORKING OF THE FIRM AND ABOUT ITS FINANCE CREATES SERIOUS DOUBT IN OUR MIND THAT THER E IS A DELIBERATE AVOIDANCE BY THEM SO AS TO PREVENT THE AUTHORITIES INCLUDING THE TRIBUNAL TO KNOW THE CORRECT FACTS ABOUT THE FINANCIAL TRANS ACTIONS OF THE FIRM AND THEREFORE, TO ARRIVE AT CORRECT INCOME. A SLEEPING LADY PARTNER COMING FORWARD TO FILE THE APPEALS WILL NOT LEAD TO ANY SU BSTANTIVE JUSTICE EITHER TO THE FIRM OR TO THE REVENUE UNLESS SOME BODY WHO HAS FULL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE WORKING OF THE FIRM COMES FORWARD TO ASSI ST THE COUNSEL AND THE TRIBUNAL IN SORTING OUT THE FACTS RELATING TO ASSES SEES APPEALS. ACCORDINGLY, WE GET AN IMPRESSION THAT DELAY IS NOT UNINTENTIONAL AND AVOIDANCE BY THE WORKING PARTNERS IS WITH THE CLEAR MOTIVE TO AVOID THE DISCLOSURE OF ACTUAL FACTS BEFORE THE AO AND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8.2 THE NEXT AUTHORITY IS IN SUPREME COURTS ORDER IN RAM NATH SAO ALIAS RAM NATH SAHU & ORS. DT.27.2.2002 (2002) 3 S CC 195. IT IS HELD THAT LIBERAL INTERPRETATION AND BALANCE BETWEEN RIG HTS OF PARTIES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT WHILE EXAMINING THE CAUSE A ND ITS SUFFICIENCY. FURTHER THE COURT SHOULD SEE THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIC E WHILE CONDONING THE DELAY. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH ABOVE PROPOSITION. SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE ITA NOS.1727, 1728 & 1739/AHD/2008 ASST. YEARS1999-00 2001-02 8 MEANS JUSTICE TO BOTH THE PARTIES AND NOT TO THE AS SESSEE ONLY. IF A SLEEPING PARTNER COMES FORWARD TO THE COUNSEL AND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THEN, WE ARE NOT CONVINCED THAT FULL FACTS OF THE ISSUES INVOLVE D, WOULD BE KNOWN TO THE COUNSEL OR TO THE TRIBUNAL AND, THEREFORE, SUBS TANTIAL JUSTICE CAN NOT BE DONE. THEREFORE, EVEN IF DELAY IS CONDONED, SUBSTAN TIAL JUSTICE IS NOT GOING TO BE DONE BY ADJUDICATING THE APPEALS ON MER IT. 8.3 THE NEXT AUTHORITY IS THE DECISION OF HON. ALLA HABAD HIGH COURT IN AUTO CENTRE VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2005) 278 I TR 291 (ALL) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT IN THE MATTER OF CONDONATION OF DEL AY A PRAGMATIC VIEW SHOULD BE TAKEN AND THERE SHOULD BE A LIBERAL APPRO ACH. IN THIS CASE CAUSE SHOWN WAS THAT OUT OF THE TWO PARTNERS ONE WAS OLD AND THE OTHER WAS ILL WHICH FACTS WERE NOT DOUBTED. THE CAUSE WAS CONSIDE RED SUFFICIENT AND DELAY WAS CONDONED. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH THE AB OVE PROPOSITION BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 8.4 THE NEXT AUTHORITY IS THE DECISION OF HON. GUJA RAT HIGH COURT IN GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZERS & CHEMICAL LTD. VS. CIT ( 2006) 283 ITR 149 (GUJ). ON THE FACTS OF THAT CASE THE CAUSE FOR DELA Y WAS CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT. THE HON. COURT HELD AS UNDER :- HELD-(I) THAT IT WAS ONLY BY VIRTUE OF LETTER DATE D DECEMBER 5, 2001, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED BY THE FICC TO PREFER CLA IMS ON THE BASIS OF THE REVISED RETENTION PRICE IN THE PRESCRIBED PRO F ORMA. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ADVISED TO DULY ADJUST THE REDUCTION IN SUBSID Y ON ACCOUNT OF THE DOWNWARD REVISION OF THE RETENTION PRICE IN THE ARR EARS OF BILLS OR FRESH BILLS THAT MAY BE PREFERRED WITH THE FICC AND ONLY IN CASES WHERE NO PAYMENTS WERE DUE FROM THE GOVERNMENT, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO REFUND THE AMOUNT TO THE GOVERNMENT BY THE DUE DATE . IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPROACH OF THE COMMISSIONER IN REFUSING TO CONDONE ITA NOS.1727, 1728 & 1739/AHD/2008 ASST. YEARS1999-00 2001-02 9 THE DELAY ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO VALID EXP LANATION WAS NOT IN ORDER. THE IMPUGNED ORDER TO THE EXTENT IT REFUSED TO CONDONE THE DELAY HAD TO BE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. SINCE THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE DIFFERENT T HIS AUTHORITY IS OF NO HELP TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM. 8.5 THE NEXT JUDGMENT IS OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT AUTO CENTRE VS. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 366 (A LL). IN THIS CASE THE HON. COURT HAS FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF HON. APEX C OURT IN BALAKRISHNAN (N) VS. KRISHNAMURTHY (M) (1998) 7 SCC 123 WHEREIN IT IS HELD AS UNDER - THE LAW OF LIMITATION IS ENSHRINED IN THE MAXIM IN TEREST REIPUBLICAE UT SIT FINIS LITIUM (IT IS FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE THA T A PERIOD BE PUT TO LITIGATION). RULES OF LIMITATION ARE NOT MEANT TO D ESTROY THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES, RATHER THE IDEA IS THAT EVERY LEGAL REMEDY MUST BE KEPT ALIVE FOR A LEGISLATIVELY FIXED PERIOD OF TIME. HELD, THAT IN THE MATTER OF CONDONATION OF DELAY A LIBERAL AND PRAGMATIC VIEW SHOULD BE TAKEN. THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR THE DELAY APPEARED TO BE SUFFICIENT AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE DEL AY WAS LIABLE TO BE CONDONED. 8.6 IN OTHER TWO JUDGMENTS ALSO THE JUDGMENT OF HON . APEX COURT IN BALAKRISHNAN (N) VS. KRISHNAMURTHY (M) (SUPRA) CASE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED. 7. EVEN THOUGH IN THE MATTER OF CONDONATION OF DELA Y A PRAGMATIC VIEW SHOULD BE ADOPTED AND A LIBERAL APPROACH SHOUL D BE TAKEN BUT WHERE IT IS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT COMING WITH A CLEA N HANDS IT IS DIFFICULT TO EXERCISE THE DISCRETION IN ITS FAVOUR. WE ARE NOT C ONVINCED THAT A NON- ITA NOS.1727, 1728 & 1739/AHD/2008 ASST. YEARS1999-00 2001-02 10 WORKING PARTNER, RATHER SLEEPING PARTNER WOULD BE A BLE TO ADVANCE CAUSE OF JUSTICE WHEN REASONS FOR THE WORKING PARTNERS NO T COMING FORWARD, ARE NOT EXPLAINED. THE ALLEGED DISPUTE IS SHOWN BETWEEN THE WORKING PARTNERS BUT NONE OF THEM IS COMING FORWARD TO ADMIT THAT TH ERE IS FAMILY DISPUTE AND THEY WERE UNABLE TO PREPARE THE PAPERS FOR FILI NG THE APPEALS. ON THE OTHER HAND AFFIDAVIT SAYS THAT APPEAL PAPERS WERE P REPARED BY 10.03.2007 (AS EXPLAINED IN POINT 4 OF THE AFFIDAVIT FURNISHED BY SMT. S.P.GITA S. PATEL, SLEEPING PARTNER) THEN THERE WAS NO REASON T O SEND THOSE PAPERS AROUND 16.5.2008 ON WHICH DATE THEY WERE HANDED OVE R TO THE TRIBUNAL. NOT BEING ABLE TO PREPARE THE APPEAL PAPERS IS ONE THING AND NOT TO GET THEM DISPATCHED IS ANOTHER THING. IT IS APPARENTLY NEGLIGENCE OR CALLOUSNESS IN NOT BEING ABLE TO DISPATCH THE PAPER S TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR NEARLY A YEAR. NO DOUBT THE CAUSE SHOWN BY THE ASSE SSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN A LIBERAL INTERPRETATION. BUT WHERE CAUSE SHOWN HAS NO RELEVANCY TO REASONABLENESS, THE DELAY COULD NOT BE CONDONED. IT IS MADE CLEAR IN SEVERAL DECISIONS OF THE COURTS SUCH AS IN SURENDRA KUMAR BOVEJA VS. CWT (2006) 287 ITR 52 (DEL) THAT SUFFICIENT CAUSE WOULD MEAN A CAUSE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PARTY I.E. A MISTAKE MADE IN GOOD FAITH IN RESPECT OF EXERCISE OF DUE CARE AND ATTENTION, BUT WHERE THERE IS WANT OF DUE CARE AND ATTENTION OR WANT OF DUE DILIGENCE THE N THERE CANNOT BE A SUFFICIENT CAUSE WARRANTING CONDONATION OF DELAY. 9. THUS WE ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH THE REASONS FOR F ILING APPEALS LATE. WE DECLINE TO CONDONE THE DELAY. THE APPEALS ARE AC CORDINGLY BARRED BY LIMITATION. HOWEVER, BEFORE PARTING AWAY WE MAY MEN TION THAT LET THE WORKING PARTNERS COME FORWARD AND FILE FRESH APPLIC ATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY GIVING SUFFICIENT REASONS. THE APPEALS CAN BE CONSIDERED AFRESH IF REASONS GIVEN ARE FOUND SUFFICIENT. ITA NOS.1727, 1728 & 1739/AHD/2008 ASST. YEARS1999-00 2001-02 11 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 13/8/2010. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (D.C.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AHMEDABAD, DATED : 13/8/2010. MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD