Mahalaxmi Hsg. & Finstock Pvt. Ltd.,, Ahmedabad v. The Income tax Officer, Ward-4(4),, Ahmedabad

CO 53/AHD/2009 | 1991-1992
Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 5320523 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN REDOF1439D
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number CO 53/AHD/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant Mahalaxmi Hsg. & Finstock Pvt. Ltd.,, Ahmedabad
Respondent The Income tax Officer, Ward-4(4),, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 25-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 25-05-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 25-05-2010
Next Hearing Date 25-05-2010
Assessment Year 1991-1992
Appeal Filed On 20-03-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JM AND A. N. PAHUJA AM) C. O. NO. 53/AHD/2009 (IN ITA NO. 114/AHD/2005 A. Y.: 1991-92) MAHALAXMI HOUSING & FIN STOCK PVT. LTD. 1 NAAYAN CHAMBERS 2 ND FLOOR NEHRU BRIDGE CORNER ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD PA NO. - VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(4) 1 ST FLOOR NAVJIVAN TRUST BUILDING NR. NAVJIVAN POST OFFICE ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) CROSS OBJECTOR BY SHRI ANIL N. SHAH AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI C. K. MISHRA DR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FILED ON FILING OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN ITA N O.114/AHD/2005 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92. 2. AS PER COLUMN NO.5 OF THE CROSS OBJECTION THE DA TE OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT TO THE TRIB UNAL IS MENTIONED AS 10-02-2005. HOWEVER THE CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED I N THE OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNAL ON 20-03-2009. ACCORDING TO SECTION 253(4) OF THE IT ACT THE CROSS OBJECTION COULD BE FILED WITHIN 30(THIRTY) DA YS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE. THE OFFICE THEREFORE NOTED THAT THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED IS TIME BARED OF 1439 DAYS (I.E. 3 YEARS 11 M ONTHS 14 DAYS. ACCORDING TO SECTION 253(5) OF THE IT ACT THE TRIBU NAL MAY ADMIT CROSS OBJECTION AFTER EXPIRY OF THE RELEVANT PERIOD IF IT IS SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING IT WITHIN T HE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. C.O.NO.53/AHD/2009 (IN ITA NO.114/AHD/2005) MAHALAXMI HOUSING & FIN STOCK PVT. LTD. VS ITO 2 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE CROSS OBJECTION SUBMITTED THAT THE CROSS OBJECT ION COULD NOT BE SUBMITTED ON TIME DUE TO THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRAT IVE AND OTHER CONSTRAINTS ON THE PART OF THE CROSS OBJECTOR COMPA NY. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DELAY IN FI LING THE CROSS OBJECTION MAY BE CONDONED. ON THE OTHER HAND THE L EARNED DR OBJECTED TO THE FILING OF THE CROSS OBJECTION BEYOND THE PER IOD AND SUBMITTED THAT NO SPECIFIC REASON IS GIVEN TO EXPLAIN ANY SUFFICIE NT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING THE CROSS OBJECTION WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION THEREFORE THE CROSS OBJECTION MAY BE DISMISSED BEING TIME BAR RED. 4. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CLEARL Y TIME BARRED AS THE SAME DID NOT DISCLOSE ANY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING IT WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAIN ED ANY SPECIFIC REASON IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILI NG THE CROSS OBJECTION BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. VAGUE AND GENERAL REASONS LIKE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER CONSTRAINTS ARE MENTIONED FOR NOT PRESENTING THE CROSS OBJECTION WITHIN THE LIMITATION PERIOD. THE REASONS EXPLAINED IN THE APPLICATION THUS CANNOT CONSTITUTE ANY SUFFI CIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING THE CROSS OBJECTION WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. SUFFICIENT CAUSE MEANS A CAUSE WHICH IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. SUFFICIENT CAUSE MEANS WHICH PREVENT A REASONABLE M AN OF ORDINARY PRUDENCE ACTING UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES WITHOUT NEGLIGENCE OR INACTION OR WANT OF BONA FIDES. NO FEE IS PAYABLE F OR FILING CROSS OBJECTION AND THERE WAS NO ADMINISTRATIVE REASON FOR NOT PREF ERRING THE CROSS OBJECTION WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THUS TH E ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN ANY SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN NOT PREFERRING THE CROSS OBJECTION DURING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. C.O.NO.53/AHD/2009 (IN ITA NO.114/AHD/2005) MAHALAXMI HOUSING & FIN STOCK PVT. LTD. VS ITO 3 5. IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REFER TO SOME OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THE ISSUE OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS/CROSS OBJECTIONS. IN THE CASE OF HIND DEVELOPMENT CORPN. VS. ITO (1979) 118 ITR 873 THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HELD THAT A TRIBUN AL CAN CONDONE THE DELAY IF THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY I N THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPEAL/CROSS OBJECTION. IN THE CASE OF VEDABHAI ALI AS VIJAYANATABAI BABURAO PATIL VS. SHANTARAM BABURAO PATIL (2002) 25 3 ITR 798 (SC) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT WHILE EXERCISING DISCRETION UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT 1963 TO CONDONE DELAY FOR SUFFICIE NT CAUSE IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED COURTS SHO ULD ADOPT A PRAGMATIC APPROACH. A DISTINCTION MUST BE MADE BETW EEN A CASE WHERE THE DELAY IS INORDINATE AND A CASE WHERE DELAY IS O F A FEW DAYS. THE COURT OBSERVED THAT WHEREAS IN THE FORMER CONSIDERATION O F PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER SIDE WILL BE RELEVANT FACTOR AND CALLS FOR A MORE CAUTIOUS APPROACH. IN THE LATTER CASE NO SUCH CONSIDERATION MAY ARISE AND SUCH A CASE DESERVES A LIBERAL APPROACH. NOW IN THE PRESENT CAS E DELAY IS NOT OF A FEW DAYS BUT OF 3 YEARS 11 MONTHS AND 14 DAYS . BESIDES THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO VALID EXPLANATION/REASON FOR THE DELA Y. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RAM MOHAN KABRA (2002) 257 ITR 773 THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS HELD AND OBSERVED THAT WHERE THE LEG ISLATURE SPELLS OUT A PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND PROVIDES FOR POWER TO COND ONE THE DELAY AS WELL SUCH DELAY CAN ONLY BE CONDONED ONLY FOR SUFFICIENT AND GOOD REASONS SUPPORTED BY COGENT AND PROPER EVIDENCE. IT IS A SE TTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE SPECIFIED PERIOD OF LIMITATION MUST BE APPLIED WITH THEIR RIGOUR AND EFFECTIVE CONSEQUENCE S. IN THIS CASE DELAY FOR FILING THE APPEAL LATE FOR ONLY A FEW DAYS WAS NOT CONDONED. IN THE CASE OF ASSTT. CIT V. TAGGAS INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT LTD. (2002) 80 ITD 21 (CAL) TRIBUNAL CALCUTTA BENCH CALCUTTA DID N OT CONDONE THE DELAY FOR FILING THE APPEAL LATE BY 13 DAYS BECAUSE THE D ELAY WAS NOT DUE TO SUFFICIENT CAUSE. C.O.NO.53/AHD/2009 (IN ITA NO.114/AHD/2005) MAHALAXMI HOUSING & FIN STOCK PVT. LTD. VS ITO 4 6. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND RELYING UPO N THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE CROSS OBJECTION WAS DUE TO SUFFICIENT CAUSE. THEREFORE THE DELAY INFILLING THE CROSS OBJECTION CANNOT BE CONDO NED. WE ACCORDINGLY TREAT THE CROSS OBJECTION TIME BARRED AND DISMISS T HE SAME. 7. AS A RESULT THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED BEING TIME BARRED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25-05-2010 SD/- SD/- (A. N. PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 25-05-2010 LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD