Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad
order : September 25, 2024 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 16th November, 2022 passed for assessment year 2014-15.
Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Pappu Kumar 2. The Registry has pointed out that the appeal is time barred by 295 days. However, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay and contended that actually the appeal is time barred by 282 days. The assessee further contended that appeal was decided by the ld. CIT(Appeals) ex-parte immediately after the COVID period and no notice was issued to the assessee. The alleged notices mentioned in the impugned order were never served upon the assessee. Therefore, the assessee could not know about the status of decision of his appeal and, therefore, could not file it within the time period.
Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then, Hon’ble Court were unanimous in their conclusion that this expression is to be used liberally. We may make reference to the following observations of the Hon’ble Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Pappu Kumar Supreme court from the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, 1987 AIR 1353: 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
3. "Every day’s delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Pappu Kumar 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.
Similarly, we would like to make reference to authoritative pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (supra). It reads as under: “Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a 4 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Pappu Kumar legislatively fixed period of time. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss”.
We do not deem it necessary to re-cite or recapitulate the proposition laid down in other decisions. It is suffice to say that the Honble Courts are unanimous in their approach to propound that whenever the reasons assigned by an applicant for explaining the condonation of delay, then such reasons are to be construed with a justice oriented approach.
In the light of above, if we examine the facts of the present case, then it would reveal that there was a bonafide lapse at the end of the assessee because the 5 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Pappu Kumar assessee will not gain anything by making his appeal time barred. The delay in filing the appeal was not adopted as a strategy to litigate with the Revenue. Considering the bonafide mistake, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit.
With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, which is contrary to the mandate given in section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Sub-section 6 of section 250 contemplates that ld. CIT(Appeals) would state the points in dispute and thereafter record reasons on those points. But in the present case, ld. CIT(Appeal) did not follow this mandatory procedure and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and restore all these issues to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merit. The ld. CIT(Appeals) shall decide the issues after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.