1. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the composite order dt.9.3.2015 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09.
2. There is a delay of 338 days in filing these appeals. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by the Affidavit of the assessee.
3. I have heard the arguments of ld. AR as well as ld. DR on condonation of delay and carefully perused the application as well as the contents of the Affidavit explaining the cause of delay in filing the appeals. It has been stated that the impugned order was received on 20.5.2015. Since the assessee is basically agriculturist and was busy in looking after the agriculture activity on field and also concentrating on the Board Examination of his child. Accordingly, the assessee was required to stay back at Hassan to facilitate and ensure the child education for the extra classes at school, hence could not seek the professional advice on the next course of action. Thus it has been explained that the assessee could not take the requisite steps of professional advice for filing the appeal due to the pre-engagement and occupation and consequently the assessee could not file the appeal within the period of limitation. The learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has pleaded that a lenient view may be taken for condoning the delay of 388 days in filing the present appeals. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 as well as the decision in the case of Concorde of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi [1979] 118 ITR 507 (SC).
4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has vehemently opposed condonation of delay and submitted that the cause of delay as explained by the assessee is vague and therefore such inordinate delay in filing the appeals cannot be condoned without sufficient reason.
5. I have considered the rival submissions as well as carefully perused the application for condonation of delay. The assessee has filed an Affidavit and simply stated that the contents of the application for condonation of delay are true and correct. There is no quarrel on the point that while condoning the delay the Court should take a lenient view and an opportunity approach in construing the sufficient cause. However, it is always a question whether the explanation and reason for delay is bona fide or is merely a device to cover the ulterior purpose such as fetches on the part of litigant or an attempt to save limitation in an under hand way. Therefore, litigant does not get free license to approach Court at its will but has to explain the reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeals. In the case on hand, the assessee has explained that he is busy in looking after the agriculture activity as well as was concentrating the Board Examination of his child. Therefore after receiving the order on 20.5.2015, he could not file the appeal within the time period of limitation provided under the Act. As far as the reasons explained for monitoring the agriculture activity is concerned it is pertinent to note that the assessee is doing the business of coffee commission agent in the name and style of M/s. JNC Coffee Links and has explained the source of deposits in the Bank as the amount received from the purchasers of the Coffee and it was used for payment to seller of the coffee. Once the assessee is claiming his main and dominant activity as business of commission agent of coffee then the explanation for delay due to looking after agriculture activity is contrary to the explanation furnished by the assessee for the amount deposited in the Bank account. As regards the time devoted to the study of child for preparing the Board Examination, it is manifest from the record that the assessee has not explained when did the Board Examination of his child take place as there is an inordinate delay of 338 days and the assessee has filed these appeals after around one year from the date of receipt of the order. Therefore if the Board Examination was over in the academic year 2014-15, then after the academic year was over this explanation of the assessee is bogus and vague even if he academic year of the child was 2015-16 then the delay upto 22.4.2016 for almost one year cannot be attributed for preparation of the Board Examination. It is not a case of an ordinary delay of a month or a couple of months so that the reason explained by the assessee can be considered as a reasonable cause. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the assessee has given a vague explanation for cause of delay without specifying the definite cause or time period during which the assessee was constrained to devote his time in those activities as stated in the application for condonation of delay then the reasons explained by the assessee cannot be accepted as reasonable cause being contrary to the facts on record. The requirement to sufficiency of cause cannot be ignored and it becomes more significant when the delay is inordinate and abnormal. The explanation of the assessee is self contradictory as on the one hand he claimed the business of coffee commission agent on the other hand the delay has been attributed to the agriculture activity and the study of child. Accordingly, the assessee has failed to establish the satisfactory cause of delay and consequently the delay of 338 days in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. Since the appeals of the assessee are barred by limitation therefore the same are dismissed.
6. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.