Sh. Satbarg Singh, Mohali V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 357/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 35721514 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 06-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 1994-1995
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Right to appeal; Condonation of delay
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES SMC CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA NOS. 357 TO 361/CHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1994-95 TO 1998-99) SH.SATBARG SINGH, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, H.NO.366, PHASE IIIA, WARD 1(9), CHANDIGARH. MOHALI. (NOW INCOME TAX OFFICER, (NOW AT FLAT NO.5003, WARD 2(3), PANCHAM CO-OPERATIVE CHANDIGARH). SOCIETY, SECTOR 68, MOHALI). PAN NO. ADHPS6279B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 06.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.07.2015 O R D E R PER H.L.KARWA, VP : THESE FIVE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, CHANDIGARH, ALL DATED 16.1. 2015 IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) OF RS.6,42,780/- , RS.1,10,830/-, RS.67,516/-, RS.2,10,513/- AND RS.2, 50,000/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, 199 7-98 AND 1998-99 RESPECTIVELY. 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THE ABOVE CASE, PENALTY ORDERS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WERE PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 27.6.2001. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(2)(B) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE APPEALS AGAINST THE PENALTY OR DERS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE D ATE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF DEMAND RELATING TO THE PENALTY . ADMITTEDLY, THE APPEALS FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CI T (APPEALS) AGAINST THE ORDERS OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT, WERE LATE BY MORE 11 YEARS AND THE REASON GIVE N IS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT KEEPING GOOD HEALTH, WAS IN SE VERE DEPRESSION DUE TO VARIOUS ISSUES AND THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS IN HIDING, SINCE THE LENDERS WERE ASKING FOR MONEY. ACCORDING THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), THE ABOVE REASONS DO NOT EXPLAIN SUCH A LONG DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL(S). 3. I HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOT H THE PARTIES AT LENGTH. IT IS RELEVANT TO OBSERVE THAT THE QUANTUM APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE ARS UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) WERE LATE BY MORE 12 YEARS AND THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) DID NOT CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE QUANTUM APPEALS AND THIS BE NCH OF THE TRIBUNAL (SMC) VIDE ORDER DATED 3.7.2015 IN ITA NOS .352 TO 356/CHD/2015 UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A PPEALS), OBSERVING AS UNDER : 6. THE QUESTION ARISES IN THIS CASE FOR DETERMINATION IS AS UNDER : WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES 3 OF THE CASE, THE CIT (APPEALS)-2, CHANDIGARH WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE BARRED MY LIMITATION? 7. NOW, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS (FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1994-95 TO 1997-98 ) WERE PASSED ON 26.12.2000. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 1998-99 ON 22.3.2002. IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT O RDERS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS/DISALLOWAN CES. SECTION 249(2) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THE PERIOD OF LI MITATION WITHIN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO EXERCISE H IS RIGHT OF APPEAL. SECTION 249(2) OF THE ACT READS AS UND ER : 249. (2) THE APPEAL SHALL BE PRESENTED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE FOLLOWING DATE, THAT IS TO SAY, [(A) WHERE THE APPEAL IS UNDER SECTION 248, THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF THE TAX, OR] (B) WHERE THE APPEAL RELATES TO ANY ASSESSMENT OR PEN ALTY, THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND RELATING TO THE A SSESSMENT OR PENALTY: [ PROVIDED THAT, WHERE AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE UNDER SECTION 146 FOR REOPENING AN ASSESSMENT, THE PERIOD FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE APPLICATION IS MADE TO THE DATE ON WHI CH THE ORDER PASSED ON THE APPLICATION IS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE EXCLUDED, OR] (C) IN ANY OTHER CASE, THE DATE ON WHICH INTIMATION OF THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED AGAINST IS SERVED. 8. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT WHERE THE APP EAL RELATING TO ANY ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE APPEAL HAS TO BE PRESENTED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND RELATING TO THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE 4 AGAINST THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE TIME BARRED. WHEN THE TRIBUNAL REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) FOR A FRESH DECISION, THE ASS ESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FI LING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS), WHICH READS AS UN DER : '1. THE APPELLANT WAS NOT KEEPING UP GOOD HEALTH AN D WAS IN SEVERE DEPRESSION DUE TO VARIOUS FAMILY ISSU ES. COPIES OF DOCUMENTS REGARDING HIS MEDICAL HISTORY AR E ATTACHED. 2. THE APPELLANT HAD VARIOUS FAMILY ISSUES DURING THIS PERIOD. HIS TWO DAUGHTERS LEFT INDIA FOR STUDY. TH E APPELLANT HAD ARRANGED FUNDS FOR THEIR STUDIES BUT COULD NOT, REPAY THE LOANS IN TIME. EVEN THE CHILDREN DID N OT SEND ANY MONEY FROM ABROAD. THE LENDERS ASKED FOR REPAYMENT OF LOANS. ON FAILURE OF THE APPELLANT TO REPAY, THE CRIMINAL ELEMENTS WERE BEHIND HIM DUE TO WHICH HE HAD TO REMAIN IN HIDING AND ULTIMATELY WENT INTO DEPRESSION. 3. THE APPELLANT'S WIFE ALSO LEFT INDIA & JOINED HIS DAUGHTERS AND NEVER RETURNED. ALL THE ABOVE FACTS LED TO A SITUATION DUE TO WHICH THE APPELLANT COULD NOT FILE THE APPEALS IN TIME. THESE WERE REASONABLE CAUSES WHICH LED TO THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEALS AND THEREFORE THE SAID DELAY DESERVES TO BE CONDONED. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEALS MAY PLEASE BE CONDONED U/S 249(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. WE SHALL BE HIGHLY OBLIGED.' 9. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) REJECTED THE AFORESA ID APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASO NS (THE ORDERS OF THE CIT (APPEALS) ARE SIMILAR FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION): 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE APPLICATION OF TH E APPELLANT REGARDING CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILIN G THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED LATE BY MORE 5 THAN ELEVEN YEARS AND THE REASON GIVEN IS THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT KEEPING GOOD HEALTH, WAS IN SEVER E DEPRESSION DUE TO VARIOUS ISSUES AND THAT THE APPEL LANT WAS IN HIDING, SINCE THE LENDERS WERE ASKING FOR MO NEY, BUT THESE REASONS DO NOT EXPLAIN SUCH A LONG DELAY IN FILING APPEAL. 3.1 THE APPEAL HAS TO BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY DAY S OF THE RECEIPT OF THE ORDER, WHICH IS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE DEMAND NOTICE. THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY HA D COME UP BEFORE HON'BLE ORISSA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BRIJBANDHU NANDA (44 ITR 688). THE FACTS IN THIS CA SE WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SENT THREE APPEALS ON 2 ND APRIL 1954, THE 56 TH DAY OF THE RECEIPT OF ORDER, BY REGISTERED POST TO INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL, THEN AT BOMBAY, IN ONE PACKET. THESE APPEALS WERE RECEIVED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 7 TH APRIL, 1954. THE LAST DATE BY WHICH THE APPEALS WER E TO BE FILED WAS 6 TH APRIL, 1954 AND SO THE APPEALS WERE OUT OF TIME BY ONE DAY. THE DELAY WAS NOT CONDONED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAD HELD THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DELAY AS UNDER: 'EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE QUESTIONS REFERRED ARE QUESTIO NS OF LAW, I AM OF OPINION THAT THERE WAS NO ERROR ON THE PART OF THE TRIBUNAL IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN ITS DISCR ETION. IN FACT, AS APPEARS FROM THE ASSESSEE'S OWN PETITION F OR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN IT.A. NOS. 85, 86 AND 87 OF 1954- 55 DATED MAY 5, 1955, THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE EXPLAINED WHY HE WAITED FOR 56 DAYS AFTER HE RECEIVED THE ORDER ON FEBRUARY 5, 1954, AS AFORESAID. IT FURTHER APPEARS FROM A LETTER DATED APRIL 9, 1954, F ROM THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BOMB AY, THAT THE APPEALS WERE RECEIVED BY HIM ON APRIL 7, 195 4, THAT IS TO SAY, ONE DAY BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIO N. IN VIEW OF SUB-RULE (2) OF RULE 7, WHICH PROVIDES THAT A MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL, SENT BY POST, SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THE REGISTRAR OR TO THE OF FICER AUTHORISED BY THE REGISTRAR, ON THE DAY ON WHICH IT IS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNAL AT BOMBAY, IT IS CLEAR 6 THAT THE APPEALS WERE RECEIVED BY THE REGISTRAR OUT OF TIME. WE HAVE DISCUSSED THE GENERAL MANDATORY ASPECT OF TH E PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE RULES THEREUNDER IN OU R DECISION IN GOVINDA CHOWDHURY V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX REFERRED TO ABOVE. . IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE N O JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DELAY IN SENDING THE APPEALS NOT UNTIL THE 56TH DAY FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER. THERE IS NO QUESTI ON OF ERROR OF FACT OR MISAPPREHENSION AS TO THE POSITION IN LAW WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN SOME EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY. THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN KRISHNA V. CHATHAPPAN OBSERVED THAT THE COURT IS NOT PREPARED TO HOLD THAT A MISTAK E IN LAW IS UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES A SUFFICIENT CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT. THE LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN COURSE OF HIS ARGUMENT RELIED ON THE SAID MADRAS CASE, WHICH, IN MY OPINION, HAS ALSO NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E PRESENT CASE. THERE IS NO QUESTION OF MISTAKE IN LAW IN THE PRESENT CASE.' 3.2 THUS, EVEN THE DELAY OF ONE DAY WAS NOT CONDONE D BY THE HON'BLE ORISSA HIGH COURT. THERE IS SANCTITY ATTACH ED TO THE LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER THE LAW, SINCE THE FINALI TY OF A DECISION IS A VALUABLE RIGHT WHICH VESTS IN A PARTY N OT AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER AND THE EXPIRY OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION ACTS AS AN ASSURANCE THAT THE ORDER HAS BECOME FINAL. HENCE, T HE QUESTION OF CONDONATION OF DELAY CANNOT BE DECIDED IN A CASU AL MANNER. HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS ALSO HELD IN THE CASE OF RAM MOHAN KABRA (257 ITR 773) T HAT THE DELAY CAN BE CONDONED ONLY FOR GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASONS, SUPPORTED BY COGENT AND PROPER EVIDENCES. THE APPEL LANT HAS NOT EXPLAINED PROPERLY THE LARGE DELAY IN FILING TH E PRESENT APPEAL AND SO THE DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEA L IS NOT 7 CONDONED U/S 249(3) OF THE ACT AND THE APPEAL IS DI SMISSED IN- LIMINE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 10. ON PERUSAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, IT WOULD BE CLEAR THAT THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED LATE BY ALMOST 12 YEARS AND THE REASON IS STATED TO BE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT KEEPING UP GOOD HEALTH, W AS IN SEVERE DEPRESSION DUE TO VARIOUS ISSUES AND THE LEN DERS WERE ASKING FOR MONEY. ON FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO REPAY, THE CRIMINAL ELEMENTS WERE BEHIND HIM DUE TO WHICH HE REMAINED IN HIDING AND ULTIMATELY WENT INT O DEPRESSION. THESE ARE THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE AS SESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFO RE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A PAPER BOOK BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. PAGES 3 TO 51 OF THE PAPER BOOK ARE STATED TO BE THE COPIES OF MEDICAL R ECORD OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPE ALS). I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE COPIES OF SO-CALLED ME DICAL RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). AT THE OUTSET, I MAY POINT OUT THAT TH E MEDICAL REPORTS AVAILABLE AT PAGES 44 TO 51 OF THE PAPER BO OK ARE DATED 18/19.11.2014. THESE DOCUMENTS RELATE TO HBA , HEMOGRAM TESTS. THESE REPORTS ARE NOT RELEVANT BE CAUSE THE APPEALS WERE FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ON 17.1.2013. THE DOCUMENTS PLACED AT PAGES 3 TO 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK ARE REPORTS OF SUGAR/BLOOD TESTS, AND TH ESE REPORTS PERTAIN TO THE YEARS 2003 AND 2004. THE DOCUMENTS PLACED AT PAGES 14 TO 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK ARE DIABETIC DI ET CHART. THE PAPERS PLACED AT PAGES 18 TO 22 OF TH E PAPER BOOK RELATE TO PRESCRIPTION SLIP DATED 15.7.2006 OF DR.T.S.SANDHU, EYE SURGEON. THE DOCUMENTS PLACED AT PAGES 23 TO 43 OF THE PAPER BOOK ARE REPORTS OF CLI NICAL TESTS AND THESE TESTS WERE DONE IN THE YEARS 2006, 2009 AND 2012. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAIN ED THE ABOVE REPORTS IN THE COURSE OF ROUTINE MEDICAL CHEC K-UP. THESE REPORTS ARE MAINLY ABOUT BP AND SUGAR LEVEL. 8 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASS ESSEE WAS IN SEVERE DEPRESSION DUE TO VARIOUS ISSUES. T HERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EVER TAKEN A TREATMENT FROM PSYCHIATRIST. THERE IS NOT HING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ADMITTED FOR A SINGLE DAY IN THE HOSPITAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE LENDERS WERE ASKING FOR MONEY. HE HAS NOT MENTIONED THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF A SINGLE LEND ER. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE REASONS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT TENABLE FOR WANT OF SUPPORTING EVI DENCE. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE T HIS TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO FILE AN AFFI DAVIT REGARDING HIS JOB HISTORY. IN THIS REGARD, THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 25.6.2015, WHEREIN HE HAS STATED THAT HE IS A PERMANENT RESIDENT OF FLAT NO.5003, PA NCHAM COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, SECTOR 68, MOHALI. H E HAS JOINED SERVICE WITH THE PUNJAB CIVIL SECRETARIAT AS CLERK ON 1.2.1968 AND REGULARLY JOINED AS CLERK W.E.F. 4.10. 1968 IN THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE PUNJAB. L ATER ON, HE WAS PROMOTED AS ASSISTANT IN THE YEAR 1983, FURTHER PROMOTED AS SUPERINTENDENT GRADE-II ON 19.3 .2002 AND THEN PROMOTED AS SUPERINTENDENT GRADE-I ON 11.12.2008 AND FINALLY HE RETIRED FROM THE ABOVE OF FICE AS SUPERINTENDENT GRADE-I ON 31.3.2009. FROM THE AFORESAID AFFIDAVIT, IT IS CLEAR THAT HE WAS IN ACT IVE SERVICE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERC E, PUNJAB. THE ASSESSEE HAS WORKED AS ASSISTANT FROM 1983 TO MARCH, 2002. HE WAS PROMOTED AS SUPERINTENDENT-II ON 19.3.2002 AND THEN PROMOTED AS SUPERINTENDENT GRADE-I ON 11.12.2008. IT SHOWS TH AT THE ASSESSEE WAS REGULARLY PERFORMING HIS DUTIES IN HIS DEPARTMENT. IT IS TRUE THAT IN CASE OF ILLNESS, T HE PROOF IS NEEDED THAT THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT WAS UTTERLY DISA BLED TO ATTEND TO ANY WORK. HE IS ALSO REQUIRED TO SH OW THAT HE WAS UNFIT TO ASSIST HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OR ADVOCATE. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE PA SSED ON 26.12.2000. IT IS TRUE THAT THE ILLNESS MUST B E AT THE 9 TIME OF EXPIRY OF LIMITATION. IF THE ASSESSEE/AP PELLANT WAS ILL BUT GOT ALRIGHT, THERE CANNOT BE ANY EXCUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. AT THIS STAGE, IT WOU LD BE WORTHWHILE TO REFER TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AJIT SINGH THAKUR SINGH VS. ST ATE OF GUJARAT, AIR 1981 SC 733, 735, WHEREIN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS MADE FOLLOWING IMPORTANT OBSERVAT IONS : IT IS TRUE THAT A PARTY IS ENTITLED TO WAIT UNTIL THE LAST DAY OF LIMITATION FOR FILING AN APPEAL. BUT WHEN IT ALLOWS LIMITATION TO EXPIRE AND PLEADS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL EARLIER, THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE MUST ESTABLISH THAT BECAUSE OF SOME EVENT OR CIRCUMSTANCE ARISING BEFORE LIMITATION EXPIRED IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO FILE THE APPEAL WITHIN TIME. NO EVENT OR CIRCUMSTANCE ARISING AFTER THE EXPIRY OF LIMITATION CAN CONSTITUTE SUCH SUFFICIENT CAUSE. THERE MAY BE EVENTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES SUBSEQUENT TO THE EXPIRY OF LIMITATION WHICH MAY FURTHER DELAY THE FILING OF THE APPEAL. BUT THAT THE LIMITATION HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO EXPIRE WITHOUT THE APPEAL BEING FILED MUST BE TRACED TO A CAUSE ARISING WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. 11. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS MISERAB LY FAILED TO PROVE THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO THE EFFECT THAT BECAUSE OF SOME EVENT OR CIRCUMSTANCE ARISING BEFOR E LIMITATION EXPIRED, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO FILE APP EALS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) WITHIN TIME. IT IS RELEVANT TO OBSERVE HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RETI RED FROM THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE AFTER ATTAINING THE AGE OF SUPERANNUATION. HE HAS NOT TAKEN RETIREMENT ON ME DICAL GROUNDS. HE HAS RETIRED AS SUPERINTENDENT GRADE-I. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM FILING THE APPEA LS 10 WITHIN TIME. SECTION 249(3) OF THE ACT PROVIDES TH AT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) MAY, ON GOOD AND SUFFICIENT C AUSE FOR THE DELAY BEING SHOWN, ADMIT AN APPEAL AFTER TH E EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THUS, THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE HAS TO SHOW THAT HE HAD SUFFICI ENT CAUSE FOR NOT PREFERRING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PER IOD OF LIMITATION. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT IN ESSEN CE, THE PHRASE SUFFICIENT CAUSE IS NOT A QUESTION OF PRIN CIPLE, BUT IS A QUESTION OF FACT. HENCE, WHETHER TO COND ONE THE DELAY, OR NOT DEPENDS UPON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF EACH CASE AS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY DEPENDS ONLY ON THE FACT PLACED BY THE APPLICANT BE FORE THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT I T IS REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN IN THE FACTS OF INDIVIDUAL CAS E WHETHER THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTE A SUFFIC IENT CAUSE FOR CONDONING THE DELAY. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, I AM OF THE CONS IDERED OPINION THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) CAN NOT BE CONDONED. ACCORDI NGLY, I DO NOT SEE ANY VALID GROUND FOR INTERFERING WITH TH E ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE AT HAND. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) AND REJECT THE COMMON GROUND OF APPEA LS. 12. THE REMAINING GROUNDS OF APPEAL DO NOT ARISE O UT OF THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), AND HENCE NO FINDINGS ARE REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN. 13. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN ASSESSEES CASE IN QUANTUM APPEALS, I UPHOLD THE OR DERS OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). THESE APPEALS HAVE BEE N FILED LATE BY MORE THAN 11 YEARS AND THE REASONS GIVEN FOR THE DELAY ARE SAME AS THOSE GIVEN IN THE QUANTUM APPEALS. THERE FORE, THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE QUANTUM APPEALS ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE 11 TO THE FACTS OF THESE APPEALS ALSO. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, I UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) AN D DISMISS ALL THE APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 6 TH DAY OF JULY, 2015. SD/- (H.L.KARWA) VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 6 TH JULY, 2015 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH