J and K Small Scale Inds. Dev. Corp. Vs. the Asstt. C.i.T., Range I - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. these are assessee's appeals for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1986-87 and 1990-91. the registry has taken an objection that these appeals have been filed with a delay of 2 years 9 months and 14 days.2. the facts are that the cit(a) disposed of the first appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1986-87 and 1990-91, vide a consolidated order dated 1-11-2003. as per section 253(3), an appeal, in order to be within limitation, can be filed before the tribunal within sixty days of the date on which the order of the cit(a), was communicated to the assessee. as per form no. 36, column 9, the date of communication of the order of the cit(a) to the assessee, is 16-12-2003. therefore, the appeals could have been filed within limitation on or before 14-2-2004. however, these appeals have been filed only on 30-11-2006. according to the applications for condonation of delay originally filed, the delay incurred is of 1021 days. the registry, as stated hereinabove, has objected that this is delay of 2 years 9 months and 14 days, i.e., 1017 days. however, it is seen, the actual delay incurred is that of 2 years 11 months and 15 days, i.e., 1079 days.3. in the application for condonation of delay in i.t.a. no.424(asr)/2006, for the assessment year 1982-83, as originally filed, it has been stated as follows: the appeal under consideration pertaining to asstt. year 1982-83 against the order of worthy cit(a) received by the appellant trust on 16-12-2003 is barred by time limitation by 1021 days. the delay is primarily related to the fact that the impugned order of worthy cit(a) got misplaced and for that very reason, the appeal could not be filed in time. the appellant trust being a government owned organization has carried out an enquiry to look into the cause of this misplacement of order and have finally punished the concerned clerk for his negligence. it is, therefore, prayed that the delay in filing this appeal may please be condoned and the appeal treated as filed within the allowed time.4. the original applications for condonation of delay accompanying all the six appeals, are identically worded.5. these applications, as is evident from the above contents thereof, are merely bald applications, shorn of any facts whatsoever, as also they are unaccompanied by any affidavit.6. vide order sheet entry dated 5-9-2007, the matter was adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for the assessee, for filing proper applications for condonation of delay.7. on 14-9-2006, the learned counsel for the assessee filed revised paper books ("rpb", for short) in the appeals on behalf of the assessee. these rpbs contain fresh applications dated 13-9-2007, for condonation of delay. along therewith, inter alia, the following documents have been filed: (1) copy of combined appellate order dated 18-3-2003, of the cit(a), bhatinda. (2) copy of orders dated 10-7-2003 of the a.o., giving effect to the orders of the cit(a). (3) copy of notice dated 27-10-2003 from the office of the cit(a), fixing the hearing on 13-11-2003. (5) copy of combined order dated 3-2-2006 of the itat, amritar bench, regarding assessment years 1980-81 to 1986-87 and 1990-91. (6) copy of the request dated 19-7-2006 for rectification filed before the a.o. (7) copies of orders dated 17-8-2006, passed under 154 of the income tax act, by the a.o. (8) copy of request dated 22-8-2006 filed by the assessee-trust for certified copy of order dated 13-11-2003, passed by the learned cit(a), jammu, alongwith copy of challan of requisite fee. (9) copy of order dated 22-8-2006, of the m.d. of the assessee-trust, to conduct enquiry in the matter of mis-placement of the order dated 13-11 -2003, passed by the cit(a), jammu. (10) copy of report dated 27-11-2006, of the enquiry officer and the concurrence thereon, of the m.d. of the assessee. (12) copy of death certificate dated 31-8-2008, of shri amit sharma, deceased son of the dak & receipt clerk of the assessee. (13) affidavit dated 10-9-2007, of the concerned official of the assessee-trust, affirming not having received the order dated 13-11-2003, of the cit(a), jammu.8. vide order sheet noting dated 10-10-2007, the learned counsel for the assessee filed fresh affidavits of shri anoop anand, deputy financial advisor & chief accounts officer of the assessee-corporation (dated 5-10-2007) and shri harbans lal sharma, dak receipt & despatch clerk of the assessee-trust/corporation (dated 6-10-2007). the mater was adjourned on the request of the learned d.r. to file his reply to the paper books filed by the assessee.9. on 17-10-2007, the department filed its objections to the assessee's request for condonation of delay.10. vide order sheet entry dated 12-11-2007, the learned counsel for the assessee was asked to produce the original dak receipt register, the despatch register and the original file of enquiry.11. on 5-12-2007, on perusal of dak receipt register, despatch register and file of enquiry, it was seen that there was no signature of the dak receipt clerk, shri harbans lal, in the register. therefore, the learned counsel for the assessee was asked to file proper amended applications for condonation of delay.12. on 3-1-2008, no application for condonation of delay stood filed.however, a final opportunity was granted to the assessee.13. on 8-1-2008, the learned counsel for the assessee filed a chart of events, in order to explain the reasons for the delay. this chart is accompanied by the following documents: (1) affidavit dated 7-1-2008, of shri harbans lal, dak receipt & despatch clerk of the assessee-corporation. (2) affidavit dated 7-1-2008, of shri anoop anand, deputy financial advisor & chief accounts officer of the assessee-corporation. (3) copy of letter dated 22-8-2006 filed by the assessee before the a.o., for supply of certified copy of order dated 13-11-2003, passed by the learned cit(a). (4) affidavit dated 4-1-2008 of shri rakesh kumar gupta, c.a. of the assessee-corporation. this affidavit does not contain any verification. (5) affidavit dated 7-1-2008 of shri rattan lal gupta, advocate and tax advisor of the assessee-corporation. this affidavit also does not contain any verification.14. on 14-1-2008, the department filed its written submissions in response to the aforesaid revised paper books/applications for condonation of delay dated 14-9-2007 filed by the assessee.15. in the applications dated 14-9-2007, seeking condonation of the delay in filing the appeals, the learned counsel for the assessee in his arguments, it has been stated, inter alia, that: ...the assessee-trust was in appeal before the learned cit(a) against the order of the a.o. on the ground of exemption under section 11 of the income tax act as well as on the grounds of additions. the learned cit(a), bhatinda, vide order dated 18-3-2003 (copy at pages 9 and 10 of the revised paper book of the assessee ("rpb", in short), allowed the assessee's appeal by allowing exemption under section 11 of the act and deleted the additions made by the a.o. vide orders dated 10-7-2007 (copy at pages 11 to 16 of the rpb), the a.o. gave effect to the aforesaid order dated 18-3-2003 passed by the learned cit(a), bhatinda. however, the a.o. did not give effect to the deletion ordered by the learned cit(a) to the additions made by the a.o. the assessee filed an appeal against the said order dated 10-9-2003, passed by the a.o. before the learned cit(a). the department filed appeal against the order dated 18-3-2003 passed by the learned cit(a), before the itat, amritsar bench, regarding the action of allowing exemption under section 11 of the act. the cit(a) vide notice dated 27-10-2003, (copy at page of rpb) fixing the case for 13-11 -2003. on 13-11-2003, the learned cit(a) heard the assessee's appeal and asked the assessee to file the written submissions regarding the validity of those appeals. on 17-11-2003, the assessee filed a clarification (copy at pages 18 and 19 of rpb) before the learned cit(a). on 3-2-2006, the tribunal decided the department's appeals (copy of order at page 26 to 37 of the rpb), holding that the cit(a) was not justified in allowing exemption to the assessee under section 11 of the act for examining whether the requisite conditions were fulfilled or not. the itat set-aside the order of the cit(a) and restored the assessments of the ao for decision afresh. in this regard, the deletion of the additions by the cit(a) was, however, upheld as not having been appealed against by the department. the a.o. in compliance with the aforesaid tribunal order, rejected the assessee's claim under section 11 of the act. on 19-7-2006, the assessee filed an application under section 154 of the act, for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record (copy at page 38 of rpb). on 17-8-2006, the a.o. rejected the application filed by the assessee under section 154 (copy at page 46 of the rpb). it was in this order of the a.o. that the a.o. observed, inter alia, as follows: ...i have gone through the assessment records as well as the rectification application filed by the assessee. the learned cit(a), bhatinda has deleted the specific additions in the asstt. years 1980-81 and 1981-82 and this office has already given effect on these issues. in the assessment years 1982-83 to 1986-87 the order of the learned cit(a), bhatinda is not clear regarding the addition made under section 143(3). he has not specifically deleted the additions in the appellate orders. since the order of the cit(a) is ambiguous on various issues in the assessment years 1982-83 to 1986-87 and 1990-91. find no infirmity in the orders of the a.o. while giving appeal effect.... on 22-8-2006, the assessee filed application before the a.o. (a.ys. 1982-83 to 1986-87 and 1990-91) for supply of a certified copy of the cit(a)'s order dated 13-11-2003. on 22-8-2006 itself, the m.d. of the assessee-corporation instituted an enquiry vide a letter (copy at page 54 of rpb). on 4-9-2006, the dak receipt and despatch clerk, (copy at page 56 of rpb) to the enquiry officer, i.e., the financial advisor and chief accounts officer of the assessee-corporation.16. the learned counsel for the assessee has also drawn our attention to the death certificate dated 31-8-2007 (copy at page 57 of the rpb) concerning the death of shri amit sharma, the son of shri harbans lal sharma, dak receipt and desptach clerk. he has also brought to our attention affidavit dated 10-9-2007 of shri anoop anand, the concerned clerk.17. in effect, the contention of the assessee is that the delay in filing these appeals occurred due to the reason that firstly, the assessee came to the knowledge of the order dated 14-11-2003, of the cit(a) having been passed, only on the passing of the aforesaid order dated 17-8-2006, of the a.o., rejecting the application filed by the assessee under section 154; that immediately on coming to know of such order dated 13-11-2003 having been passed, the assessee filed an application before the a.o. for supplying a certified copy, of the said order of the cit(a); that also, immediately, an enquiry was instituted into the matter, in which enquiry, it was found by the enquiry officer, i.e., the financial advisor of the assessee-corporation/trust, that it was found that on checking the receipt register, it become known that the dak receipt/despatch clerk had received the said order dated 13-11-2003 of the cit(a); that shri harbans lal sharma, the then dak receipt & despatch clerk had intimated that he regularly delivered the dak to the concerned officers but he did not remember the particulars and that he was not well in those days and might have misplaced the order dated 13-11-2003 of the cit(a); that on verbal enquiry from the dfa and cao on 22-8-2006, he outrightly denied the receipt of the said order dated 13-11-2003 of the cit(a) and conveyed that he never missed such an important document and that he, being a senior officer, understood the importance thereof; that the p.a. of the dfa and cao explained that she always delivered the documents as and when she received them to the dfa and cao, but did not remember anything about this particular document; and that in view of these facts, it seemed that this document, i.e., the order dated 13-11 -2003 passed by the cit(a), jammu had been misplaced somewhere in the office.18. the learned counsel for the assessee further contended that the said report of the d.f.a. and c.a.o. of the assessee-corporation/trust had been accepted by its m.d. with the following remarks: however, it is a serious lapse on the part of receipt clerk to have lost such important letter from the income tax department. keeping in view the mental state of health of the official due to the unfortunate death of his son, the version of the receipt clerk is being accepted. for similar problem, he was shifted from his post, (a copy of this report is at page 55 of the rpb).19. the learned counsel for the assessee, drawing our attention to the letter of the dak receipt and despatch clerk (copy at page 56 of rpb) and the death certificate of his son, (copy at page 57 of rpb), has contended that it was due to the death of his son that the dak receipt and despatch clerk, not being in the proper frame of mind due to the death of his son, had misplaced the said order dated 13-11-2003 passed by the learned cit(a); and that even the concerned clerk, shri anoop anand, had, in his affidavit, affirmed having received the said order.20. the learned counsel for the assessee has contended that had the said order dated 13-11-2003 passed by the learned cit(a) been received by the dfa of the assessee trust, only in that case, it would have been a deliberate or casual approach of the assessee-trust in filing the appeals late; that however, when the order of the cit(a) had not reached the concerned person, it was a clear case of the assessee-trust having been prevented by a sufficient cause for not presenting the appeals before the tribunal in time. reliance in this regard has been placed on the decision of the hon'ble supreme court in the case of "collector, land acquisition v. mst. katiji and ors." 167 itr 471 (sc) and another decision of the hon'ble supreme court in the case of "ram kishan v. u.p. state roadways transport corporation" (1994) (supp.2) scc 507.21. the department, on the other hand, by way of its written submissions, which have been staunchly supported by the learned d.r. by way of his verbal argument, has contended that the stated reasons for condonation of delay, as put forth by the assessee, are nothing but an eye wash. it has been submitted that the untruthfulness and incorrectness of the stand of the assessee is evident from the fact that actually, the assessee had originally filed applications dated 1-8-2003 under section 154 of the income tax act before the a.o., for rectification. copies of these applications have been appended as annexure a-1 to a-6 of the department's written submissions ("dws", for short). it has been pointed out by the learned d.r. that in these applications, the assessee had made the following submissions: the income of the trust assessed by your good self is not correct because effect to the directions of the cit(a) for deleting the disallowances/additions have been ignored while giving effect to order of cit(a). although the cit(a) have said that "i find no utility of similar exercise in most/all points of later assessment years" yet he has clearly stated that "i had deleted the entire additions/disallowances covering all the grounds one by one in my order in appeal for the assessment year 1980-81 under appeal no. a25/cit(a)/811/02-03 dated 25-2-2003.22. the learned d.r. has further submitted that the said applications of the assessee were disposed of by the a.o. by passing separate orders for each, year on 1-3-2004 (copies annexed as annexure b-l to b-6 of the dws), which were served on the assessee by speed post. it has been urged that the a.o., in this order, has specifically observed as follows: i have gone through the assessment record and as well as the rectification application filed by the assessee. the learned cit(a), bhatinda clearly deleted the specific addition in the assessment year. 1980-81 and 1981-82 to 1986-87, the order of the cit(a) is not clear regarding the deletions made. moreover, the ld. cit(a), jammu (hq. at amritsar) vide his order in appeal no. a-251/2003-04 dated 13-11-2003 has said that "i find no infirmity in the order of the a.o. while giving appeal effects". on this point the application of the assessee filed under section 154 is rejected.23. the learned d.r. has further contended that not only this, alongwith the aforesaid rectification orders, a consolidated refund of rs. 29,08,530/- was issued vide refund voucher no. dit-021/e328645 dated 4-3-2004 and that this refund was duly encashed by the assessee.24. continuing his argument, the learned d.r. has stated that by virtue of another application dated 10-3-2004, filed by the assessee under section 154 of the act, the assessee had requested the a.o. for further rectification of the order dated 1-4-2003, for the assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84, 1985-86 and 1990-91, concerning calculation of interest under section 214/244 a of the act (copies at annexure c-1 to c-4 of the dws). the learned d.r. contends that all these applications were disposed of by the a.o., vide order dated 14-5-2004, which order was not appealed against by the assessee.25. the stand of the department thus is that the alleged cause tried to be shown by the assessee as a sufficient cause preventing it from filing its appeals within the time limit prescribed by section 253(3) of the act, is nothing other than a mere facade put up by the assessee in an attempt to tide over the inordinate unexplained delay in filing these appeals. the learned dr has contended that in these facts, the applications for condonation of delay be rejected and the appeals filed by the assessee be dismissed as having been filed beyond the prescribed time limitation, without any sufficient cause.26. we have heard the parties and have perused the material on record.the assessee has tried to make out a case that the assessee came to know of the passing of the order dated 11-3-2003 by the learned cit(a), only when the a.o. passed order dated 17-8-2003, rejecting the application dated 19-7-2006 filed by the assessee under section 154; that thereafter, immediately, an in-house enquiry into the matter was conducted by the assessee; that in the said enquiry, it was submitted that the dak receipt and despatch clerk had received the appellate order dated 13-11-2003 of the cit(a), on 16-12-2003, but had failed to deliver it to any official/officer of the assessee-corporation, having misplaced the same; that the said dak receipt clerk was in a disturbed state of mind due to the sudden and untimely death of his son in a road accident, a year earlier; that it was due to this disturbed state of mind that the dak receipt clerk misplaced the order dated 13-11-2003 of the cit(a) received on 16-12-2003. the assessee has averred that the assessee had immediately applied before the a.o. for a certified copy of the order dated 13-11-2003, passed by the learned cit(a); that the certified copy of the said order was received on 14-11-2006; and that after preparation of the appeals, they were filed immediately on 29-11-2006. in this manner, according to the assessee, sufficient cause has prevented it from filing these appeals in time.27. the department, on the other hand, has placed documentary evidence on record to prove that the stand taken by the assessee before us is wholly untrue and is, in fact, an attempt to mislead the bench. the learned d.r. has placed on record, inter alia, copies of the applications dated 1-8-2003 filed by the assessee before the a.o. these applications have been placed at annexure a-1 to a-6 of the dws. copies of orders dated 1-3-2004 of the a.o., passed on the aforesaid applications of the assessee, have also been placed on record before us as annexure b-1 to b-6 of the dws. at the outset not been able to deny these documents. in the a.o.'s order dated 1-3-2004, it has been observed as follows: i have gone through the asstt. record and as well as the rectification application filed by the assessee. the ld. cit(a) bathinda has clearly deleted the specific additions in the asstt. year 1980-81 and 1981-82 and this office has carried out those additions. in this asstt. year 1982-83 to 1986-87, the order of the cit(a) is not clear regarding the deletions made. he has not specifically deleted the additions in his appellate order. moreover, the ld. cit(a), jammu hqrs. at amritsar vide his order in appeal no. a-251/2003-04 dated 13-11-2003 has said that i find no infirmity in the order of the a.o. while giving appeal effect. on this point the application of the assessee filed under section 154 is rejected.28. strikingly, the assessee, on its part, has conveniently tried to hide the factum of the filing of the aforesaid applications dated 1-8-2003 before the a.o. and the passing of the order dated 1-3-2004 by the a.o., wherein, the factum of the order dated 13-11-2003 having been passed by the learned cit(a) stands clearly mentioned. therefore, at the very outset, the assessee has not come to with clean hands and its action cannot be said to be bonafide. it is thus guilty of suppresio vari.29. the learned counsel for the assessee has not denied the aforesaid orders dated 1-3-2004 passed by the a.o. on the applications dated 1-11-2003 filed by the assessee. rather, what has been stated is that the said rectification in the a.o.'s order dated 1-3-2004 does not convey intimation of the factum of the order dated 13-11-2003 having been passed by the learned cit(a); that had it been otherwise, there was no reason why the assessee ought not to have filed the appeals before the tribunal immediately upon coming to know of the passing of the said order dated 13-11-2003 by the learned cit(a). it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee that it was only by way of the order date 17-10-2006 passed by the a.o. that the assessee came to know of the passing of the order dated 13-11-2003 by the learned cit(a) and that the consequence of events succeeding such knowledge, as stated by the assessee, constitutes a sufficient cause for the delay in the filing of the appeals under consideration.30. the contentions of the learned counsel for the assessee do not inspire confidence. firstly, the very fact that the assessee did not disclose before this bench the factum of its having filed the applications dated 1-8-2003, under section 154 of the act before the a.o. and of the passing of the order dated 1-3-2004 by the a.o. on the said applications, casts a shadow of doubt on the bonafide of the assessee. with-holding of this information certainly does not go in favour of the assessee.31. then, the argument on behalf of the assessee that the observation of the a.o. in the order dated 1-3-2004 regarding the cit(a), in his order dated 13-11-2003, having observed that he found no infirmity in the order of the a.o. while giving appeal effect, is an argument without any force. it cannot at all be said that this observation of the a.o. does not convey that the order dated 13-11-2003 had been passed by the learned cit(a). in our opinion, no ordinary prudent person would contend otherwise. the language of the a.o.'s order cannot be, by any means, said to be cryptic. it clearly conveys what it intends to state.32. moreover, it remains further undenied that by virtue of the aforesaid order dated 1-3-2004 passed by the a.o., the refund of rs. 29,08,530/- was issued to the assessee which refund was encashed by the assessee in due course, though this fact. again, was not brought to our notice by the assessee.33. the department's stand is further buttressed by the fact that yet other applications were filed by the assessee on 10-3-2004 before the a.o., requesting for rectification of the a.o.'s order dated 3-4-2004 regarding calculation of interest under section 214/244a of the act.copies of these applications have been placed before us by the department by way of annexures c-1 to c-4 of the dws.34. it has been further pointed out by the learned d.r., and this also goes against the assessee, that against the order dated 10-7-2003 (supra) passed by the a.o., giving effect to the cit(a)'s order dated 18-30-2003, the assessee filed appeal and this filing of appeal came about only after filing of the first applications dated 1-8-2003 under section 154 of the act on 5-8-2003.35. from the above, it becomes amply evident that the assessee has miserably failed to show sufficient cause in the occurrence of the delay of 2 years 11 months 15 days in filing these appeals.36. in "mst. katiji" (supra), it has been held by the hon'ble supreme court that sufficient cause for the purpose of condonation of delay should be interpretted with a view to do even handed justice on merits.however, in the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the assessee has not been able to show sufficient cause in incurring the delay of 2 years 11 months 15 days in filing the appeals. rather, the modus operandi adopted by the assessee, as discussed hereianbove, is not beyond shadow of doubt. "mst. katiji" (supra), therefore, works against, rather than in favour of, the assessee. the assessee has contended that in "ram kishan v. up. state roadways transport corporation" (supra), the delay was condoned even though the reason for the delay given was not convincing. a copy of the said decision has been placed at pages 62 to 63 of the rpb. this contention of the assessee is, it is seen, only half correct. in that case, a death due to accident took place in 1974. a petition for compensation under the motor vehicle act was filed in 1977, contending that the claimants were deeply bereaved by the death of their son and could not file the claim in time. it was in these facts that despite finding that the said reason stated by the claimants did not sound convincing, the hon'ble supreme court condoned the delay by observing, inter alia, in para 4 of the order, as follows: (4) although the story put forward by the appellants, for not filing the application for compensation within the period of limitation, does not sound convincing but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, especially the extreme shock under which the appellants were labouring, we are of the view that the motor accident claims tribunal should have condoned the delay and decided the claims on merits.37. in the present case, the assessee has not been able to make out any parity on facts with those in "ram kishan" (supra). keeping in view the facts and the circumstances if this case, as discussed hereinabove, the assessee has not been able to make out any sufficient cause for condonation of the delay of 2 years 11 months and 15 days in filing these appeals. rather, the conduct of the assessee is not above board.it has not come to court with clean hands. it has suppressed facts relevant for the decision on the issue of the condonation of delay.vaijayanatabai baburao patil v. shantaram baburao patil and ors." 253 itr 798 (s.c.), it has been held, inter alia, that in exercising discretion under section 5 of the limitation act, 1963, to condone delay for sufficient cause in not preferring an appeal or other application within the period prescribed, courts should adopt a pragmatic approach; that a distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days; that in the former consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor and calls for a more cautious approach; that the court has to exercise its discretion on the facts of each case, keeping in mind that in construing the expression "sufficient cause" the principle of advancing 39. in the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the delay is definitely inordinate, i.e., of 2 years 11 months and 15 days.moreover, here is a case where the assessee has tried to mislead the court by suppressing the relevant facts. therefore, though in accordance with "vedabai" (supra), the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction, such liberal construction is entirely uncalled for in the present case.40. in "cit v. ram mohan kabra" 257 itr 773 (pb. & har.), the hon'ble punjab and haryana high court has held, inter alia, that where the legislature spells out a period of limitation and provides for power to condone the delay as well, such delay can be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons, supported by cogent and proper evidence.it is a settled principle of law that provisions relating to the specified period of limitation must be applied with their rigour and effective consequences.41. in the present case, as discussed hereinbefore, the delay of 2 years 11 months and 15 days in filing out of these six appeals is not entitled to be condoned, since the assessee had not been able to make out any sufficient or good reasons for such delay, rather the assessee has tried to mislead the court by suppressing the relevant facts.in view of the above, the delay of 2 years 11 months and 15 days in filing of each of these appeals, is not entitled to be condoned.ordered accordingly. the applications for condonation of delay filed by the assessee, therefore, stand rejected.in the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as being barred by 2 years 11 months and 15 days of limitation.

Judgment:
1. These are assessee's appeals for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1986-87 and 1990-91. The Registry has taken an objection that these appeals have been filed with a delay of 2 years 9 months and 14 days.

2. The facts are that the CIT(A) disposed of the first appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1986-87 and 1990-91, vide a consolidated order dated 1-11-2003. As per Section 253(3), an appeal, in order to be within limitation, can be filed before the Tribunal within sixty days of the date on which the order of the CIT(A), was communicated to the assessee. As per Form No. 36, Column 9, the date of communication of the order of the CIT(A) to the assessee, is 16-12-2003. Therefore, the appeals could have been filed within limitation on or before 14-2-2004. However, these appeals have been filed only on 30-11-2006. According to the applications for condonation of delay originally filed, the delay incurred is of 1021 days. The Registry, as stated hereinabove, has objected that this is delay of 2 years 9 months and 14 days, i.e., 1017 days. However, it is seen, the actual delay incurred is that of 2 years 11 months and 15 days, i.e., 1079 days.

3. In the application for condonation of delay in I.T.A. No.424(ASR)/2006, for the assessment year 1982-83, as originally filed, it has been stated as follows: The appeal under consideration pertaining to Asstt. Year 1982-83 against the order of worthy CIT(A) received by the appellant Trust on 16-12-2003 is barred by time limitation by 1021 days. The delay is primarily related to the fact that the impugned order of worthy CIT(A) got misplaced and for that very reason, the appeal could not be filed in time. The appellant Trust being a Government owned organization has carried out an enquiry to look into the cause of this misplacement of order and have finally punished the concerned clerk for his negligence.

It is, therefore, prayed that the delay in filing this appeal may please be condoned and the appeal treated as filed within the allowed time.

4. The original applications for condonation of delay accompanying all the six appeals, are identically worded.

5. These applications, as is evident from the above contents thereof, are merely bald applications, shorn of any facts whatsoever, as also they are unaccompanied by any affidavit.

6. Vide order sheet entry dated 5-9-2007, the matter was adjourned at the request of the learned Counsel for the assessee, for filing proper applications for condonation of delay.

7. On 14-9-2006, the learned Counsel for the assessee filed revised paper books ("RPB", for short) in the appeals on behalf of the assessee. These RPBs contain fresh applications dated 13-9-2007, for condonation of delay. Along therewith, inter alia, the following documents have been filed: (1) Copy of combined appellate order dated 18-3-2003, of the CIT(A), Bhatinda.

(2) Copy of orders dated 10-7-2003 of the A.O., giving effect to the orders of the CIT(A).

(3) Copy of notice dated 27-10-2003 from the office of the CIT(A), fixing the hearing on 13-11-2003.

(5) Copy of combined order dated 3-2-2006 of the ITAT, Amritar Bench, regarding assessment years 1980-81 to 1986-87 and 1990-91.

(6) Copy of the request dated 19-7-2006 for rectification filed before the A.O. (7) Copies of orders dated 17-8-2006, passed under 154 of the Income tax Act, by the A.O. (8) Copy of request dated 22-8-2006 filed by the assessee-trust for certified copy of order dated 13-11-2003, passed by the learned CIT(A), Jammu, alongwith copy of challan of requisite fee.

(9) Copy of order dated 22-8-2006, of the M.D. of the assessee-trust, to conduct enquiry in the matter of mis-placement of the order dated 13-11 -2003, passed by the CIT(A), Jammu.

(10) Copy of report dated 27-11-2006, of the Enquiry Officer and the concurrence thereon, of the M.D. of the assessee.

(12) Copy of death certificate dated 31-8-2008, of Shri Amit Sharma, deceased son of the Dak & Receipt Clerk of the assessee.

(13) Affidavit dated 10-9-2007, of the concerned official of the assessee-trust, affirming not having received the order dated 13-11-2003, of the CIT(A), Jammu.

8. Vide order sheet noting dated 10-10-2007, the learned Counsel for the assessee filed fresh affidavits of Shri Anoop Anand, Deputy Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer of the assessee-corporation (dated 5-10-2007) and Shri Harbans Lal Sharma, Dak Receipt & Despatch Clerk of the assessee-trust/corporation (dated 6-10-2007). The mater was adjourned on the request of the learned D.R. to file his reply to the paper books filed by the assessee.

9. On 17-10-2007, the department filed its objections to the assessee's request for condonation of delay.

10. Vide order sheet entry dated 12-11-2007, the learned Counsel for the assessee was asked to produce the original Dak Receipt Register, the Despatch Register and the original file of enquiry.

11. On 5-12-2007, on perusal of Dak Receipt Register, Despatch Register and file of enquiry, it was seen that there was no signature of the Dak Receipt Clerk, Shri Harbans Lal, in the register. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the assessee was asked to file proper amended applications for condonation of delay.

12. On 3-1-2008, no application for condonation of delay stood filed.

However, a final opportunity was granted to the assessee.

13. On 8-1-2008, the learned Counsel for the assessee filed a chart of events, in order to explain the reasons for the delay. This chart is accompanied by the following documents: (1) Affidavit dated 7-1-2008, of Shri Harbans Lal, Dak Receipt & Despatch Clerk of the assessee-corporation.

(2) Affidavit dated 7-1-2008, of Shri Anoop Anand, Deputy Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer of the assessee-corporation.

(3) Copy of letter dated 22-8-2006 filed by the assessee before the A.O., for supply of certified copy of order dated 13-11-2003, passed by the learned CIT(A).

(4) Affidavit dated 4-1-2008 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, C.A. of the assessee-corporation. This affidavit does not contain any verification.

(5) Affidavit dated 7-1-2008 of Shri Rattan Lal Gupta, Advocate and Tax Advisor of the assessee-corporation. This affidavit also does not contain any verification.

14. On 14-1-2008, the department filed its written submissions in response to the aforesaid revised paper books/applications for condonation of delay dated 14-9-2007 filed by the assessee.

15. In the applications dated 14-9-2007, seeking condonation of the delay in filing the appeals, the learned Counsel for the assessee in his arguments, it has been stated, inter alia, that: ...The assessee-trust was in appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the order of the A.O. on the ground of exemption under Section 11 of the Income tax Act as well as on the grounds of additions. The learned CIT(A), Bhatinda, vide order dated 18-3-2003 (copy at pages 9 and 10 of the revised paper book of the assessee ("RPB", in short), allowed the assessee's appeal by allowing exemption under Section 11 of the Act and deleted the additions made by the A.O. Vide orders dated 10-7-2007 (copy at pages 11 to 16 of the RPB), the A.O. gave effect to the aforesaid order dated 18-3-2003 passed by the learned CIT(A), Bhatinda. However, the A.O. did not give effect to the deletion ordered by the learned CIT(A) to the additions made by the A.O. The assessee filed an appeal against the said order dated 10-9-2003, passed by the A.O. before the learned CIT(A).

The department filed appeal against the order dated 18-3-2003 passed by the learned CIT(A), before the ITAT, Amritsar Bench, regarding The action of allowing exemption under Section 11 of the Act.

The CIT(A) vide notice dated 27-10-2003, (copy at page of RPB) fixing the case for 13-11 -2003.

On 13-11-2003, the learned CIT(A) heard the assessee's appeal and asked the assessee to file the written submissions regarding the validity of those appeals.

On 17-11-2003, the assessee filed a clarification (copy at pages 18 and 19 of RPB) before the learned CIT(A).

On 3-2-2006, the Tribunal decided the department's appeals (copy of order at page 26 to 37 of the RPB), holding that the CIT(A) was not justified in allowing exemption to the assessee under Section 11 of the Act for examining whether the requisite conditions were fulfilled or not. The ITAT set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the assessments of the AO for decision afresh. In this regard, the deletion of the additions by the CIT(A) was, however, upheld as not having been appealed against by the department.

The A.O. in compliance with the aforesaid Tribunal order, rejected the assessee's claim under Section 11 of the Act.

On 19-7-2006, the assessee filed an application under Section 154 of the Act, for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record (copy at page 38 of RPB).

On 17-8-2006, the A.O. rejected the application filed by the assessee under Section 154 (copy at page 46 of the RPB). It was in this order of the A.O. that the A.O. observed, inter alia, as follows: ...I have gone through the assessment records as well as the rectification application filed by the assessee. The learned CIT(A), Bhatinda has deleted the specific additions in the Asstt. Years 1980-81 and 1981-82 and this office has already given effect on these issues. In the assessment years 1982-83 to 1986-87 the order of the learned CIT(A), Bhatinda is not clear regarding the addition made Under Section 143(3). He has not specifically deleted the additions in the appellate orders. Since the order of the CIT(A) is ambiguous on various issues in the assessment years 1982-83 to 1986-87 and 1990-91. Find no infirmity in the orders of the A.O. while giving appeal effect....

On 22-8-2006, the assessee filed application before the A.O. (A.Ys.

1982-83 to 1986-87 and 1990-91) for supply of a certified copy of the CIT(A)'s order dated 13-11-2003.

On 22-8-2006 itself, the M.D. of the assessee-corporation instituted an enquiry vide a letter (copy at page 54 of RPB).

On 4-9-2006, The Dak receipt and despatch clerk, (copy at page 56 of RPB) to the Enquiry Officer, i.e., the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer of the assessee-corporation.

16. The learned Counsel for the assessee has also drawn our attention to the death certificate dated 31-8-2007 (copy at page 57 of the RPB) concerning the death of Shri Amit Sharma, the son of Shri Harbans Lal Sharma, Dak Receipt and Desptach Clerk. He has also brought to our attention affidavit dated 10-9-2007 of Shri Anoop Anand, the concerned clerk.

17. In effect, the contention of the assessee is that the delay in filing these appeals occurred due to the reason that firstly, the assessee came to the knowledge of the order dated 14-11-2003, of the CIT(A) having been passed, only on the passing of the aforesaid order dated 17-8-2006, of the A.O., rejecting the application filed by the assessee under Section 154; that immediately on coming to know of such order dated 13-11-2003 having been passed, the assessee filed an application before the A.O. for supplying a certified copy, of the said order of the CIT(A); that also, immediately, an enquiry was instituted into the matter, in which enquiry, it was found by the Enquiry Officer, i.e., the Financial Advisor of the assessee-corporation/trust, that it was found that on checking the receipt register, it become known that the Dak Receipt/Despatch Clerk had received the said order dated 13-11-2003 of the CIT(A); that Shri Harbans Lal Sharma, the then Dak Receipt & Despatch Clerk had intimated that he regularly delivered the Dak to the concerned officers but he did not remember the particulars and that he was not well in those days and might have misplaced the order dated 13-11-2003 of the CIT(A); that on verbal enquiry from the DFA and CAO on 22-8-2006, he outrightly denied the receipt of the said order dated 13-11-2003 of the CIT(A) and conveyed that he never missed such an important document and that he, being a Senior Officer, understood the importance thereof; that the P.A. of the DFA and CAO explained that she always delivered the documents as and when she received them to the DFA and CAO, but did not remember anything about this particular document; and that in view of these facts, it seemed that this document, i.e., the order dated 13-11 -2003 passed by the CIT(A), Jammu had been misplaced somewhere in the office.

18. The learned Counsel for the assessee further contended that the said report of the D.F.A. and C.A.O. of the assessee-corporation/trust had been accepted by its M.D. with the following remarks: However, it is a serious lapse on the part of Receipt Clerk to have lost such important letter from the Income tax Department. Keeping in view the mental state of health of the official due to the unfortunate death of his son, the version of the receipt clerk is being accepted. For similar problem, he was shifted from his post, (a copy of this report is at page 55 of the RPB).

19. The learned Counsel for the assessee, drawing our attention to the letter of the Dak Receipt and Despatch Clerk (copy at page 56 of RPB) and the death certificate of his son, (copy at page 57 of RPB), has contended that it was due to the death of his son that the Dak Receipt and Despatch Clerk, not being in the proper frame of mind due to the death of his son, had misplaced the said order dated 13-11-2003 passed by the learned CIT(A); and that even the concerned clerk, Shri Anoop Anand, had, in his affidavit, affirmed having received the said order.

20. The learned Counsel for the assessee has contended that had the said order dated 13-11-2003 passed by the learned CIT(A) been received by the DFA of the assessee trust, only in that case, it would have been a deliberate or casual approach of the assessee-trust in filing the appeals late; that however, when the order of the CIT(A) had not reached the concerned person, it was a clear case of the assessee-trust having been prevented by a sufficient cause for not presenting the appeals before the Tribunal in time. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors." 167 ITR 471 (SC) and another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Ram Kishan v. U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation" (1994) (Supp.2) SCC 507.

21. The department, on the other hand, by way of its written submissions, which have been staunchly supported by the learned D.R. by way of his verbal argument, has contended that the stated reasons for condonation of delay, as put forth by the assessee, are nothing but an eye wash. It has been submitted that the untruthfulness and incorrectness of the stand of the assessee is evident from the fact that actually, the assessee had originally filed applications dated 1-8-2003 under Section 154 of the Income tax Act before the A.O., for rectification. Copies of these applications have been appended as Annexure A-1 to A-6 of the Department's Written Submissions ("DWS", for short). It has been pointed out by the learned D.R. that in these applications, the assessee had made the following submissions: The income of the trust assessed by your good self is not correct because effect to the directions of the CIT(A) for deleting the disallowances/additions have been ignored while giving effect to order of CIT(A). Although the CIT(A) have said that "I find no utility of similar exercise in most/all points of later assessment years" yet he has clearly stated that "I had deleted the entire additions/disallowances covering all the grounds one by one in my order in appeal for the assessment year 1980-81 under appeal No. A25/CIT(A)/811/02-03 dated 25-2-2003.

22. The learned D.R. has further submitted that the said applications of the assessee were disposed of by the A.O. by passing separate orders for each, year on 1-3-2004 (copies annexed as Annexure B-l to B-6 of the DWS), which were served on the assessee by speed post. It has been urged that the A.O., in this order, has specifically observed as follows: I have gone through the assessment record and as well as the rectification application filed by the assessee. The learned CIT(A), Bhatinda clearly deleted the specific addition in the assessment year. 1980-81 and 1981-82 to 1986-87, the order of the CIT(A) is not clear regarding the deletions made. Moreover, the ld. CIT(A), Jammu (HQ. at Amritsar) vide his order in appeal No. A-251/2003-04 dated 13-11-2003 has said that "I find no infirmity in the order of the A.O. while giving appeal effects". On this point the application of the assessee filed under Section 154 is rejected.

23. The learned D.R. has further contended that not only this, alongwith the aforesaid rectification orders, a consolidated refund of Rs. 29,08,530/- was issued vide refund voucher No. DIT-021/E328645 dated 4-3-2004 and that this refund was duly encashed by the assessee.

24. Continuing his argument, the learned D.R. has stated that by virtue of another application dated 10-3-2004, filed by the assessee under Section 154 of the Act, the assessee had requested the A.O. for further rectification of the order dated 1-4-2003, for the assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84, 1985-86 and 1990-91, concerning calculation of interest under Section 214/244 A of the Act (copies at Annexure C-1 to C-4 of the DWS). The learned D.R. contends that all these applications were disposed of by the A.O., vide order dated 14-5-2004, which order was not appealed against by the assessee.

25. The stand of the department thus is that the alleged cause tried to be shown by the assessee as a sufficient cause preventing it from filing its appeals within the time limit prescribed by Section 253(3) of the Act, is nothing other than a mere facade put up by the assessee in an attempt to tide over the inordinate unexplained delay in filing these appeals. The learned DR has contended that in these facts, the applications for condonation of delay be rejected and the appeals filed by the assessee be dismissed as having been filed beyond the prescribed time limitation, without any sufficient cause.

26. We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record.

The assessee has tried to make out a case that the assessee came to know of the passing of the order dated 11-3-2003 by the learned CIT(A), only when the A.O. passed order dated 17-8-2003, rejecting the application dated 19-7-2006 filed by the assessee under Section 154; that thereafter, immediately, an in-house enquiry into the matter was conducted by the assessee; that in the said enquiry, it was submitted that the Dak Receipt and Despatch Clerk had received the appellate order dated 13-11-2003 of the CIT(A), on 16-12-2003, but had failed to deliver it to any official/officer of the assessee-corporation, having misplaced the same; that the said Dak Receipt Clerk was in a disturbed state of mind due to the sudden and untimely death of his son in a road accident, a year earlier; that it was due to this disturbed state of mind that the Dak Receipt Clerk misplaced the order dated 13-11-2003 of the CIT(A) received on 16-12-2003. The assessee has averred that the assessee had immediately applied before the A.O. for a certified copy of the order dated 13-11-2003, passed by the learned CIT(A); that the certified copy of the said order was received on 14-11-2006; and that after preparation of the appeals, they were filed immediately on 29-11-2006. In this manner, according to the assessee, sufficient cause has prevented it from filing these appeals in time.

27. The department, on the other hand, has placed documentary evidence on record to prove that the stand taken by the assessee before us is wholly untrue and is, in fact, an attempt to mislead the Bench. The learned D.R. has placed on record, inter alia, copies of the applications dated 1-8-2003 filed by the assessee before the A.O. These applications have been placed at Annexure A-1 to A-6 of the DWS. Copies of orders dated 1-3-2004 of the A.O., passed on the aforesaid applications of the assessee, have also been placed on record before us as Annexure B-1 to B-6 of the DWS. At the outset not been able to deny these documents. In the A.O.'s order dated 1-3-2004, it has been observed as follows: I have gone through the asstt. record and as well as the rectification application filed by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) Bathinda has clearly deleted the specific additions in the asstt.

year 1980-81 and 1981-82 and this office has carried out those additions. In this asstt. year 1982-83 to 1986-87, the order of the CIT(A) is not clear regarding the deletions made. He has not specifically deleted the additions in his appellate order. Moreover, the ld. CIT(A), Jammu Hqrs. at Amritsar vide his order in appeal No. A-251/2003-04 dated 13-11-2003 has said that I find no infirmity in the order of the A.O. while giving appeal effect. On this point the application of the assessee filed Under Section 154 is rejected.

28. Strikingly, the assessee, on its part, has conveniently tried to hide the factum of the filing of the aforesaid applications dated 1-8-2003 before the A.O. and the passing of the order dated 1-3-2004 by the A.O., wherein, the factum of the order dated 13-11-2003 having been passed by the learned CIT(A) stands clearly mentioned. Therefore, at the very outset, the assessee has not come to with clean hands and its action cannot be said to be bonafide. It is thus guilty of suppresio vari.

29. The learned Counsel for the assessee has not denied the aforesaid orders dated 1-3-2004 passed by the A.O. on the applications dated 1-11-2003 filed by the assessee. Rather, what has been stated is that the said rectification in the A.O.'s order dated 1-3-2004 does not convey intimation of the factum of the order dated 13-11-2003 having been passed by the learned CIT(A); that had it been otherwise, there was no reason why the assessee ought not to have filed the appeals before the Tribunal immediately upon coming to know of the passing of the said order dated 13-11-2003 by the learned CIT(A). It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the assessee that it was only by way of the order date 17-10-2006 passed by the A.O. that the assessee came to know of the passing of the order dated 13-11-2003 by the learned CIT(A) and that the consequence of events succeeding such knowledge, as stated by the assessee, constitutes a sufficient cause for the delay in the filing of the appeals under consideration.

30. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the assessee do not inspire confidence. Firstly, the very fact that the assessee did not disclose before this bench the factum of its having filed the applications dated 1-8-2003, under Section 154 of the Act before the A.O. and of the passing of the order dated 1-3-2004 by the A.O. on the said applications, casts a shadow of doubt on the bonafide of the assessee. With-holding of this information certainly does not go in favour of the assessee.

31. Then, the argument on behalf of the assessee that the observation of the A.O. in the order dated 1-3-2004 regarding the CIT(A), in his order dated 13-11-2003, having observed that he found no infirmity in the order of the A.O. while giving appeal effect, is an argument without any force. It cannot at all be said that this observation of the A.O. does not convey that the order dated 13-11-2003 had been passed by the learned CIT(A). In our opinion, no ordinary prudent person would contend otherwise. The language of the A.O.'s order cannot be, by any means, said to be cryptic. It clearly conveys what it intends to state.

32. Moreover, it remains further undenied that by virtue of the aforesaid order dated 1-3-2004 passed by the A.O., the refund of Rs. 29,08,530/- was issued to the assessee which refund was encashed by the assessee in due course, though this fact. again, was not brought to our notice by the assessee.

33. The department's stand is further buttressed by the fact that yet other applications were filed by the assessee on 10-3-2004 before the A.O., requesting for rectification of the A.O.'s order dated 3-4-2004 regarding calculation of interest under Section 214/244A of the Act.

Copies of these applications have been placed before us by the department by way of Annexures C-1 to C-4 of the DWS.34. It has been further pointed out by the learned D.R., and this also goes against the assessee, that against the order dated 10-7-2003 (supra) passed by the A.O., giving effect to the CIT(A)'s order dated 18-30-2003, the assessee filed appeal and this filing of appeal came about only after filing of the first applications dated 1-8-2003 under Section 154 of the Act on 5-8-2003.

35. From the above, it becomes amply evident that the assessee has miserably failed to show sufficient cause in the occurrence of the delay of 2 years 11 months 15 days in filing these appeals.

36. In "Mst. Katiji" (supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that sufficient cause for the purpose of condonation of delay should be interpretted with a view to do even handed justice on merits.

However, in the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the assessee has not been able to show sufficient cause in incurring the delay of 2 years 11 months 15 days in filing the appeals. Rather, the modus operandi adopted by the assessee, as discussed hereianbove, is not beyond shadow of doubt. "Mst. Katiji" (supra), therefore, works against, rather than in favour of, the assessee. The assessee has contended that in "Ram Kishan v. UP. State Roadways Transport Corporation" (supra), the delay was condoned even though the reason for the delay given was not convincing. A copy of the said decision has been placed at pages 62 to 63 of the RPB. This contention of the assessee is, it is seen, only half correct. In that case, a death due to accident took place in 1974. A petition for compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act was filed in 1977, contending that the claimants were deeply bereaved by the death of their son and could not file the claim in time. It was in these facts that despite finding that the said reason stated by the claimants did not sound convincing, the Hon'ble Supreme Court condoned the delay by observing, inter alia, in para 4 of the order, as follows: (4) Although the story put forward by the appellants, for not filing the application for compensation within the period of limitation, does not sound convincing but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, especially the extreme shock under which the appellants were labouring, we are of the view that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal should have condoned the delay and decided the claims on merits.

37. In the present case, the assessee has not been able to make out any parity on facts with those in "Ram Kishan" (supra). Keeping in view the facts and the circumstances if this case, as discussed hereinabove, the assessee has not been able to make out any sufficient cause for condonation of the delay of 2 years 11 months and 15 days in filing these appeals. Rather, the conduct of the assessee is not above board.

It has not come to court with clean hands. It has suppressed facts relevant for the decision on the issue of the condonation of delay.Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil and Ors." 253 ITR 798 (S.C.), it has been held, inter alia, that in exercising discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone delay for sufficient cause in not preferring an appeal or other application within the period prescribed, courts should adopt a pragmatic approach; that a distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days; that in the former consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor and calls for a more cautious approach; that the court has to exercise its discretion on the facts of each case, keeping in mind that in construing the expression "sufficient cause" the principle of advancing 39. In the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the delay is definitely inordinate, i.e., of 2 years 11 months and 15 days.

Moreover, here is a case where the assessee has tried to mislead the Court by suppressing the relevant facts. Therefore, though in accordance with "Vedabai" (supra), the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction, such liberal construction is entirely uncalled for in the present case.

40. In "CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra" 257 ITR 773 (Pb. & Har.), the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held, inter alia, that where the Legislature spells out a period of limitation and provides for power to condone the delay as well, such delay can be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons, supported by cogent and proper evidence.

It is a settled principle of law that provisions relating to the specified period of limitation must be applied with their rigour and effective consequences.

41. In the present case, as discussed hereinbefore, the delay of 2 years 11 months and 15 days in filing out of these six appeals is not entitled to be condoned, since the assessee had not been able to make out any sufficient or good reasons for such delay, rather the assessee has tried to mislead the Court by suppressing the relevant facts.

In view of the above, the delay of 2 years 11 months and 15 days in filing of each of these appeals, is not entitled to be condoned.

Ordered accordingly. The applications for condonation of delay filed by the assessee, therefore, stand rejected.

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as being barred by 2 years 11 months and 15 days of limitation.