JUDGMENT
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.
1. The assessee is before us. The questions, according to the assessee, arising from the order of the Tribunal are :
“(A) Whether the conclusion of the Tribunal that there was no sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the time allowed is perverse and contrary to law?
(B) Whether the said conclusion is arrived at by taking into consideration irrelevant materials and excluding relevant materials ?
(C) Whether, in arriving at the said conclusion, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law by not applying the settled principles of law as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471?”
2. Facts relevant to decide the issue can briefly be stated thus : The assessee filed the appeals as if they are not barred by limitation. On the Department pointing out that the appeals were filed out of time, the assessee filed petitions to condone the delay in filing the appeals. But, at the same time, the assessee was trying to sustain his contention that the appeals are not barred by limitation. A reference in this connection to the following excerpt from annexure-A filed along with O. P. No. 1194 of 1990 is profitable :
“During the last some years, the petitioner was suffering from some heart ailment, and he was not able to remember everything properly. He is also under treatment. Though the order is dated May 30, 1986, the petitioner does not remember the exact date on which it was received. He is also doubtful whether the order was received by him or somebody else. The order was traced and came to his notice only last week. Assuming for argument’s sake that the order might have been received by the petitioner or somebody of his office within 25 days of the date of the order, it is presumed that the said order, if at all received, might have been received somewhere around June 25, 1987. If so, the appeal before the Tribunal should have been filed within 60 days, i.e., on or before August 24, 1987. However, the order has come to the notice of the petitioner only last week. There might be a delay in filing the appeal if the order was received earlier and the delay might be around somewhere six months. The petitioner affirms that the delay was caused by reasons beyond his control and his knowledge.”
3. The Tribunal, however, held that the assessee has not been successful in showing that there existed sufficient cause for not presenting the appeals within the stipulated period.
4. It is clear from the findings of the Tribunal that the assessee had not approached the Tribunal with clean hands. The explanations given
by the asscssee in his affidavits are not convincing. Even on his being told that the appeals were filed out of time, he was trying to sustain his contention that they were filed within lime.
5. The findings of the Tribunal, under the circumstances, cannot be said to be perverse. If that be the position, the questions challenging the said findings cannot he said to be questions of law arising out of the order bf the Tribunal.
6. We, therefore, reject the applications.
