N.C.Sasi, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 723/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64256 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GURU BHASHYAM JT
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Retrospective amendment; Reasonable cause; Benefit of exemption; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A.NO. 723/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SHRI N.C.SASI NO.1/565, BLOCK 3 G.1 P.G.BUILDERS MAMBAKKAM MAIN ROAD VEERABADRA NAGAR MEDAVAKKAM CHENNAI 600 100 [PAN AAZPS 2466 B] VS THE ACIT CIRCLE I CHENNAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI T. BANUSEKAR, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GURUBHASHYAM, JT. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 05-09-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-09-2012 O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-IV, CHENNAI, DATED 8.11.2006,BY TAKING T HE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. FOR THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE AND AT ANY RATE IS OPPOSED TO THE PRIN CIPLES OF EQUITY, NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY. I.T.A.NO.723/12 :- 2 -: 2. FOR THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 3. FOR THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF RS.5,00,000/- A S EXEMPTION U/S.1 0(1OC). 4. FOR THAT THE CBDT VIDE ITS NOTIFICATION NO.F173(1)32/2009-ITA-1 HAS HELD THAT EMPLOYEES OF RBI WHO ACCEPTED OPTIONAL EARLY RETIREMENT SCHEME (OERS) WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE EXEMPTION US/.1 0(1 0C). 5. FOR THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA H AS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S.10( 10C) TO RBI EMPLOYEES UNDER OERS VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 21.10.2009 ON CIVIL APPEAL NOS: 6997-7002 OF 2009. 6. FOR THESE GROUNDS AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL IT IS MOST HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLE ASED TO A. DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE EXEMPTION CLAIM OF RS.5,00,000 /- U/S.1 0(1OC). B. PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL MAY DEEM FIT. 2. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BARRED BY LIMI TATION OF 1914 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE REASON FOR THE DELAY AS UNDER: THE PETITIONER IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS IN APPEAL BE FORE THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV, CHENNAI, PASSED UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1. THE SAID ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) - IV, WAS PASSED ON 08.11.2006. THE PETITIONER FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THIS ORDER ON 04.04.2012 I.E. WITH A DELAY OF 1914 DAYS I.T.A.NO.723/12 :- 3 -: BEYOND THE TIME ALLOWED FOR FILING THE APPEAL, WHI CH ENDED ON 07.01.2007 (SINCE THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS NOT AVAILABLE, DELAY HAS BE EN CALCULATED FROM THE DATE OF ORDER INSTEAD OF THE DA TE OF SERVICE OF ORDER). THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C) TO THE TUNE OF RS .5,00,000/- .THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN COMPLETING THE ASSESSMEN T HAD DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 10(10C). AG GRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, THE PETITIONER PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- IV, CHENNAI. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIDE ORDER DAT ED 08.11.206 DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY CONFIRMING THE D ISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM U/S.10(10C) MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE DEMAND OF RS.1,66,048/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE DISALLOWA NCE OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C) WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE REFUND OF RS.1, 78,280/- CLAIMED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO NOTE T HAT THE PETITIONER WAS ONLY WORKING AS A CLERK IN THE NOTES SECTION OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND IS NOT AWARE OF INCOME TA X LAW AND RELATED PROCEDURES. AFTER THE APPEAL WAS DISMIS SED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -IV, CHENNAI, THE PETITIONER WAS ADVISED NOT TO GO ON FURTHER APPEAL SINCE THE CHANCES OF WINNING WERE BLEAK. IN THE MEANWHILE, TH E PETITIONER MOVED TO HIS HOMETOWN IN KERALA. THE PETITIONER WA S SUFFERING FROM ILLNESS AND WAS PREOCCUPIED WITH THE TREATMEN T FOR THE SAME. SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE YEAR 2010, WHEN THE PETITIONER MET A FRIEND OF HIM WHO WAS ALSO AN EMPLOYEE OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, THE PETITIONER LEARNT ABOUT THE DECISION OF THE HO N'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF EXEMPT ION U/S. 10(10C) TO THE APPELLANTS WHO WERE EMPLOYEES OF RE SERVE BANK OF INDIA AND WHO ACCEPTED FOR OPTIONAL EARLY RETIREMENT SCHEME (OERS) IN RESPECT OF APPEALS IN ITA NOS.2381 , 2382, 2386, 2387 & 2388/MDS/2007 FOR THE AY 2004-05. THE PETITIONER ALSO LEARNT ABOUT THE CBDT INSTRUCTION F .NO.173 (1 )/ 32/2009-ITA-1 DATED 08.05.2009 STATING THAT THE EMP LOYEES OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA WHO ACCEPTED OERS WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C) . THE PETITIONER ALSO LEARNT ABOUT THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DATED 21.10.2009 WHERE IN IT HAS BEEN THAT T HE EMPLOYEES OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA WHO ACCEPTED OER S WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S .10(10C). I.T.A.NO.723/12 :- 4 -: BY VIRTUE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED NOTIFICATION AND D ECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, THE PETITIONER WAS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C). BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PETITIONER MA DE A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) -IV, CHENNAI ON 27.07.2011 TO RECTIFY THE ORDER AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GRANT REFUND OF TA X OF RS.1,66,048/-. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) VIDE COMMUNICATION DATED 29.07.2011 REJECTED THE MISCELL ANEOUS PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. RELYING ON THE CBDT NOTIFICATION AND THE DECISION O F THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, THE PETITIONER APPROACHED THE ASSES SING OFFICER AND SOUGHT REFUND OF TAX OF RS.1 ,66,048/-. SINCE THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FORTHCOMING FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TH E PETITIONER FILED A PETITION WITH THE INCOME TAX OMBUDSMAN ON 16.08.2011 CITING THE CBDT NOTIFICATION AND THE DECISION OF T HE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND SOUGHT REFUND OF THE TAX OF RS.1 ,66,048/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C). T HE INCOME TAX OMBUDSMAN DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TA KE ACTION IN THIS REGARD. IN MARCH, 2012 THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N TURN DIRECTED THE PETITIONER TO FILE A RECTIFICATION PETITION BEF ORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - IV, CHENNAI EXPLAINING THE PRESENT STAND OF THE DEPARTMENT IN RESPECT OF THE EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C). SINCE THE PETITION BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) -IV, CHENNAI TO RECTIFY THE ORDER WAS AL READY REJECTED ON THE GROUND OF LIMITATION, THE PETITIONER APPROAC HED SHRI.T.BANUSEKAR, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT DURING THE L AST WEEK OF MARCH 2012. SHRI.T.BANUSEKAR, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT ADVISED THE PETITIONER TO GO ON APPEAL TO THE HON'BLE INCO ME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI. THE PETITIONER REQUEST ED SHRI.T.BANUSEKAR, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT TO DRAFT THE APPEAL PAPERS. IMMEDIATELY, SHRI.T.BANUSEKAR, CHARTERED A CCOUNTANT DRAFTED THE APPEAL PAPERS AND SENT THE SAME FOR SI GNING TO THE PETITIONER ON 03.04.2012. THE APPELLANT SIGNED THE PAPERS AND SENT THE SAME TO THE OFFICE OF SHRI.T.BANUSEKAR, C HARTERED ACCOUNTANT ON 04.04.2012 AND THE APPEAL WAS FILED ON 04.04.2012. THE PETITIONER SUBMITS THAT THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED WITHIN SIXTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE ORDER DU E TO THE ABOVE STATED REASON AND THEREFORE THE PETITIONER PRAYS T HAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 191 4 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL U/S.253(5) AND ADMIT THE APPEAL F ILED ON 04.04.2012. I.T.A.NO.723/12 :- 5 -: 3. THE A.R OF THE ASSESSEE, RELYING ON THE CONDO NATION PETITION, SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE AP PEAL SHOULD BE CONDONED AND THE APPEAL SHOULD BE ADMITTED FOR HEAR ING. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS K.S.P.SHANMUGAVE L NADAR & OTHERS [1985] 153 ITR 596 (MAD) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT WHE RE APPELLANT HAS BEEN PROSECUTING OTHER REMEDIES BEFORE FILING AN AP PEAL, THE TIME TAKEN BY THOSE PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACC OUNT WHILE DETERMINING THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF BAJAJ HINDUSTHAN LTD VS JCIT, 92 ITD 411(MU MBAI) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FILING APPEAL AGA INST THE ORDER U/S 155(4A) HAVING ARISEN ONLY AFTER A SUBSEQUENT RULIN G OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTIFYING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) IS CONDONED. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECI SION IN THE CASE OF VENKATADRI TRADERS LTD VS CIT, 248 ITR 681(MAD) WHE REIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHILE CONSIDERING THE QUESTION OF CONDONATION THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY IS NOT TO ALTOGETHER EXCLUDE FROM CONSIDE RATION THE MERITS OF THE REVISION PETITION; CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEING THE SAME RECEIPT HAS BEEN TAXED TWICE OVER HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE PRIM A FACIE INCORRECT THE CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DECLINING TO CONDONE T HE DELAY IN FILING THE I.T.A.NO.723/12 :- 6 -: REVISION PETITION U/S 264. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF [A]KARAM CHAND PREMCHAND (P) LTD VS CIT, 101 ITR 46 (GUJ) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT SUBSEQUENT SUPREME COURT DECISION RE VISING THE WELL SETTLED LEGAL POSITION ON THE QUESTION OF A DEDUCT ION IS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONING DELAY IN FILING REVISION APPLIC ATION FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE C ASE OF MR.P.BALASUBRAMANIAM VS ACIT IN IT(SS)A.NOS.183 AND 184/MDS/2003, ORDER DATED 30.12.2005, WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT ALTH OUGH THERE WAS DELAY OF 5 YEARS AND 170 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEING THAT HE FILED PETITION BEFORE THE SP ECIAL COURT CONSTITUTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRYING THE CRIMINAL CASE ON THE SAME TRANSACTION, THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR CONDO NATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. 4. RELYING ON THE ABOVE STATED DECISIONS, THE PRAYER O F THE A.R OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE DELAY OF 1914 DAYS I.E 5 YEARS AND 3 MONTHS APPROXIMATELY, IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL SHOULD BE CONDONED AND THE APPEAL SHOULD BE ADMITTED FOR HEARING. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED T HE CONDONATION PETITION FOR THE DELAY FILED BY THE AS SESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT AN ABNORMAL DELAY OF 1914 DAYS SHOUL D NOT BE I.T.A.NO.723/12 :- 7 -: CONDONED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) WAS PASSED ON 8.11.2006 WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSE SSEE AND NO FURTHER APPEAL THEREAGAINST WAS FILED. HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE CBDT CIRCULAR F.NO.173(1)/32/2009-ITA-1 DATED 8.5.2009 S TATES THAT THE BOARD HAS ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMB AY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS KOODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKSHAN [2009] 309 ITR 113 (BOM), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNTS REC EIVED BY RETIRING EMPLOYEES OF THE RBI WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTIO N U/S 10(10C) AND IT HAS BEEN DECIDED THAT THE EMPLOYEES OF RBI W HO ACCEPTED OERS WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 1 0(10C) OF THE ACT. THE DR SUBMITTED THAT THIS CIRCULAR IS DATED 8.5.20 09 AND HENCE, APPLICABLE TO THE CASES AFTER THAT DATE AND NOT WIT H RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. HE, THEREFORE, ARGUED THAT THE CONDONATION PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS AN INORDINATE DE LAY OF 1914 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. WE FIND THAT THE RECENT JUDICIA L TREND ON THE ISSUE IS WELL SETTLED THAT IN THE MATTER OF CONDONING THE DE LAY, A LIBERAL APPROACH IS TO BE TAKEN BUT IN A CASE WHERE THE DEL AY IS NOT OF A MERE I.T.A.NO.723/12 :- 8 -: FEW DAYS BUT INORDINATE DELAY OF MORE THAN FIVE YEA RS THEN THE DELAY CANNOT BE CONDONED IN A ROUTINE MANNER OR ON A SYMP ATHETIC CONSIDERATION BUT CAN BE CONDONED ONLY WHEN THE APP ELLANT IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT HE ACTED WITH DUE DILIGENCE AND INSPITE O F DUE DILIGENCE OF THE APPELLANT THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED ON A DA TE PRIOR TO THE DATE ON WHICH IT IS ACTUALLY FILED BECAUSE OF THE CIRCUM STANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE APPELLANT OR BECAUSE OF BONAFIDE REA SONS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AFTER GOING THROUGH THE REASONS AS STATED IN THE CONDONATION PETITION AND ALSO REITERATED BEFORE US, WE FIND THA T THE REASONS ARE VAGUE AND DOES NOT SHOW THAT ASSESSEE ACTED DILIGE NTLY WITHIN THE INTERIM PERIOD. THE REASONS EXPLAINED BY THE APPEL LANT IS THAT IN 2006 THE CIT(A) DISMISSED HIS APPEAL AND THEREAFTER HE D ID NOT PREFER ANY APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF ADVICE T HAT CHANCES OF WINNING WERE BLEAK. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT COME OUT AS TO THE PERSON FROM WHOM THE ADVICE WAS RECEIVED, WHETH ER THE PERSON WHO GAVE ADVICE WAS AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD OR NOT O R THE ADVICE WAS BASED ON WHICH MATERIAL IS NOT KNOWN FROM THE ABOVE ASSERTIONS. THUS, IT CANNOT BE VERIFIED WHETHER THE APPELLANT A CTED DILIGENTLY. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT ASSERTED THAT IT CAME TO KNO W ABOUT THE FAVOURABLE DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREM E COURT AND THIS TRIBUNAL WHICH WERE ALSO RENDERED ON 21.10.2009 FRO M HIS FRIENDS IN I.T.A.NO.723/12 :- 9 -: THE YEAR 2010. THEREAFTER, HE FILED RECTIFICATION PETITION BEFORE THE CIT(A) ONLY ON 21.7.2011. FROM THE ABOVE ASSERTION OF THE ASSESSEE, IT COULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TAKE ANY STEP FROM THE UNSPECIFIED DATE OF 2010 WHEN HE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE DECISIONS MENTIONED ABOVE UPTO THE DATE OF FILI NG OF PETITION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THIS PERIOD IS ATLEAST MORE THAN SIX MONTHS WHICH IS MUCH MORE THAN THE PERIOD PROVIDED FOR FILING OF AP PEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL U/S 253(5) OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN ABSOLUTELY NO EXPLANATION FOR THIS PERIOD. IT IS A WELL SETTLED POSITION THAT IT IS THE OBLIGATION OF THE PARTY WHO SEEKS CONDONATION TO CO ME OUT WITH COMPLETE FACTS AND SHOW THAT HE WAS NOT GUILTY OF N EGLIGENCE AND ACTED DILIGENTLY. IT IS NOT THE DUTY OF THE TRIBUN AL TO ASSUME REASONS WHICH WAS NOT GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT. 7. IN THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND FORCE IN THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE REVENUE AGAINS T CONDONATION OF DELAY IN THE INSTANT CASE. THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE A.R OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TO THE EFFECT THAT UNTIL THE HON'BLE S UPREME COURT DECIDED THE ISSUE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE FILE D APPEAL AGAINST THE ISSUE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND THAT AS PER TH E ASSERTION OF THE APPELLANT HIMSELF HE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE DECISIO N OF HON'BLE I.T.A.NO.723/12 :- 10 -: SUPREME COURT IN THE YEAR 2010 AND THE ACTUAL EFFEC TIVE STEPS THEREAFTER WAS TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT ONLY ON 21.7. 2011 BY FILING PETITION BEFORE THE CIT(A). THUS, THE APPELLANT HA S NOT TAKEN ANY EFFECTIVE STEPS FOR REMOVAL OF HIS GRIEVANCE EVEN A FTER HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS. THIS UNEXPLAINED DELAY, IN OUR CONSIDE RED OPINION, DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT ACTED DILIGENTLY AND ON THE CONTRARY, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS SHOWS THE NEGLIGENCE ON TH E PART OF THE APPELLANT OR INDIFFERENCE TOWARDS THE PERIOD OF LIM ITATION PROVIDED IN THE STATUTE. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ABOVE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE A.R DOES NOT HELP THIS CASE. WE , THEREFORE, HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO DECLINE CONDONATION OF INORDINATE DEL AY OF 1914 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 12 TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2012, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.S.SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR