KALPANA D. VORA, MUMBAI V. ITO 16(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 2212/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0060 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V JANARDHANAN
• Assessee Lawyers: JITENDRA SINGH
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, SMC , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2212/MUM/2017 : ASST.YEAR 2009-2010 ITA NO.2219/MUM/2017 : ASST.YEAR 2008-2009 SMT.KALPANA D VORA 81, SAHAKAR NIWAS, 20 TARDEO ROAD HAJI ALI CIRCLE MUMBAI 400 034. PAN : ABXPV0218P / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 16(1)(4) MUMBAI. ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) /APPELLANT BY : SHRI JITENDRA SINGH /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V.JANARDHANAN / DATE OF HEARING : 27.06.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.08.2017 / O R D E R THESE ARE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST COMMON ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 16.03.2015 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 AND 2009-2010. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 664 DAYS EACH IN FILING THE APPEALS. FOR REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY, ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SHE WAS BUSY TAKING CARE OF NEWLY BORN GRANDSON. 3. I HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. I FIND THAT THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RAM LAL VS REWA COALFIELDS AIR 1962 SC 361 HAS EXPOUNDED THAT THE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WHICH BY DUE CARE AND ATTENTION WOULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED CANNOT BE A SUFFICIENT CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LIMITATION PROVISION. IT IS ONLY WERE ITA NOS.2212 & 2219/MUM/2017. SMT.KALPANA D VORA. 2 NO NEGLIGENCE, OR INACTION, FOR WANT OF BONAFIDES CAN BE IMPUTED TO THE APPELLANT, A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROVISIONS HAS TO BE MADE IN ORDER TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. BUT, WHERE THERE IS GROSS NEGLIGENCE, INACTION FOR WANT OF BONAFIDES ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT, THE PROVISION TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL CANNOT BE SO LIBERALLY CONSTRUED PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT PERIOD OF THE DELAY IS OF A SUBSTANTIAL PERIOD. FURTHERMORE I NOTE THAT HONOURABLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF VEDABHAI BABURAO PATIL VS SHANTARAM BABURAO PATIL (2002) 253 ITR 798 HAS HELD THAT THOUGH IN EXERCISING DISCRETION, UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT 1963 TO CONDONE THE DELAY FOR SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN NOT PREFERRING AN APPEAL OR OTHER APPLICATION WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED, THE COURT SHOULD ADOPT A PRAGMATIC APPROACH. A DISTINCTION MUST BE MADE WHERE THE DELAY IS INORDINATE AND THE CASE WHERE THE DELAYS OF A FEW DAYS. WHEREAS IN THE FORMER CASE THE CONSIDERATION OF PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER SIDE WILL BE A RELEVANT FACTOR AND CALLS FOR A MORE CAUTIOUS APPROACH, BUT IN THE LATTER CASE NO SUCH CONSIDERATION MAY ARISE AS SUCH CASE DESERVES A LIBERAL APPROACH. NO HARD AND FAST RULE CAN BE LAID DOWN IN THIS REGARD. THE COURT HAS TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE KEEPING IN MIND THAT IN CONSIDERING THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE THE PRINCIPLE OF ADVANCING SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS OF PRIME IMPORTANCE. 4. NOW I EXAMINE THE PRESENT CASE. HERE I NOTE THAT REASON STATED FOR THE INORDINATE DELAY OF 664 DAYS IS THAT ASSESSEE WAS BUSY IN TAKING CARE OF HER NEWLY BORN GRANDSON. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE IS VERY CASUAL AND THE REASONABLE CAUSE ATTRIBUTED FOR THE INORDINATE DELAY DOES NOT INSPIRE ANY COGENCY. ITA NOS.2212 & 2219/MUM/2017. SMT.KALPANA D VORA. 3 5. IN THE BACKGROUND OF AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND PRECEDENTS, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE IS NO JUST AND PROPER REASON TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 664 DAYS IN THESE CASES. ACCORDINGLY, THESE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED BEING TIME-BARRED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THESE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 22 ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2017. SD/- ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 22 ND AUGUST, 2017. DEVDAS* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. / CIT(A), MUMBAI 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. [ / GUARD FILE.