Himachal Fine Blank Limited, Chandigarh V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 262/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9997 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTALDR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR G AUR
• Keywords: Period of limitation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 262/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S HIMACHAL FINE BLANK LTD., VS THE DCIT, ( MERGED WITH KDDL LTD.), CIRCLE 1(1), SCO 88-89, SECTOR 8-C, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAACH4432P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJESH KUMAR G AUR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL,DR DATE OF HEARING : 19.05.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.05.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), CHANDIGARH DATED 27.03.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE FILED TH E APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WHICH WAS LATE BY TH REE DAYS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY APPLICATION FOR CONDON ATION OF DELAY ON RECORD, LD. CIT(APPEALS) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN NO. 9 OF THE APPEAL MENTIONED 27.03.2014 AS THE DATE OF COMMUNICATION O F 2 THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST, HOWEVER, APPEAL IS FILE D IN THE OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNAL ON 23.03.2016. THE OFFICE, THEREFORE, NOTED THAT APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 667 DAYS. 4. THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPLICATION OF CONDONATION O F DELAY SUBMITTED THAT HON'BLE HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT ALLOWED THE MERGER OF ASSESSEE COMPANY WITH K DDL LTD. VIDE ORDER DATED 27.12.2012. COPY OF THE ORDE R IS FILED. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLAIMED THAT ASSESSEE COM PANY WAS RENDERED NON-EXISTENT AFTER 01.04.2011. IT IS ALSO CLAIMED THAT DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS NOT INT ENTIONAL BUT IT WAS MAINLY DUE TO ADMINISTRATIVE RE-SHUFFLE ON ACCOUNT OF MERGER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WITH KDDL LTD. 5. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, I DO NOT FIND A NY JUSTIFICATION TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE AP PEAL. ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DEL AY, ASSESSEE COMPANY MERGED WITH KDDL LTD. VIDE JUDGEME NT OF THE HIGH COURT DATED 27.12.2012, MEANING THEREBY ON THE DATE OF PASSING OF THE ORDER BY THE LD. CIT(APP EALS) ON 27.03.2014, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD ALREADY MERGED WITH M/S KDDL LTD. THERE WAS, THUS, NO REASON FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. NO SPECIFIC REASON HAVE BEEN GIVEN EXPLAINING THE DELAY IN FILING APPE AL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ONLY GENERAL AND VAGUE REASON IS EXPLAINED DUE TO ADMINISTRATIVE RE-SHUFFLE FOR DELA Y IN FILING THE APPEAL WHICH COULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS 3 SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR DELAY IN SUBMITTING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REFER TO SOME OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THE ISSUE OF DELAY IN FI LING THE APPEALS. IN THE CASE OF HIND DEVELOPMENT CORPN. V. ITO[1979] 118 ITR 873, THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HELD THAT A TRIBUNAL CAN CONDONE THE DELAY IF THERE WAS SUFFI CIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPEAL . IN THE CASE OF VEDABAI ALIAS VIJAYANATABAI BABURAO PAT IL V. SHANTARAM BABURAO PATIL [2002] 253 ITR 798' (SC), W HERE IT WAS HELD THAT WHILE EXERCISING DISCRETION UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963, TO CONDONE DELAY FOR SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN TH E PERIOD PRESCRIBED, COURTS SHOULD ADOPT A PRAGMATIC APPROAC H. A DISTINCTION MUST BE MADE BETWEEN A CASE WHERE THE D ELAY IS INORDINATE AND A CASE WHERE THE DELAY IS OF A FE W DAYS. THE COURT OBSERVED THAT WHEREAS IN THE FORMER CONSIDERATION OF PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER SIDE WILL B E A RELEVANT FACTOR AND CALLS FOR A MORE CAUTIOUS APPRO ACH. IN THE LATTER CASE NO SUCH CONSIDERATION MAY ARISE AND SUCH A CASE DESERVES A LIBERAL APPROACH. NOW IN THE PRES ENT CASE DELAY IS NOT OF A FEW DAYS BUT OF 667 DAYS. BE SIDES, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO VALID EXPLANATION/REASON FOR THE DELAY. IN THE CASE OF CITV. RAM MOHAN KABRA [2002] 257 ITR 773, THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HA S HELD OBSERVED THAT WHERE THE LEGISLATURE SPELLS OUT A PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND PROVIDES FOR POWER TO COND ONE THE 4 DELAY AS WELL, SUCH DELAY CAN ONLY BE CONDONED ONLY FOR SUFFICIENT AND GOOD REASONS SUPPORTED BY COGENT AND PROPER EVIDENCE. IT IS A SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW T HAT PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE SPECIFIED PERIOD OF LIMI TATION MUST BE APPLIED WITH THEIR RIGOUR AND EFFECTIVE CONSEQUENCES. IN THIS CASE DELAY FOR FILING THE APP EAL LATE FOR ONLY A FEW DAYS WAS NOT CONDONED. IN THE CASE O F ASSTT. CIT V. TAGGAS INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT LTD. [2 002] 80 ITD 21 (CAL.), TRIBUNAL, CALCUTTA BENCH, CALCUTT A, DID NOT CONDONE THE DELAY FOR FILING THE APPEAL LATE BY 13 DAYS BECAUSE THE DELAY WAS NOT DUE TO SUFFICIENT CA USE. THUS, RELYING ON THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS, I HOLD THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THAT DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS WAS DUE TO SUFFICIENT CAUSE. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I DO NOT FIND ANY SUFFICIE NT CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL. THEREFORE, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED HOLD ING IT TO BE TIME BARRED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 20 TH MAY, 2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD