UDAY VISHNU GAONKAR,SINDHUDURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD KUDAL, SINDHUDURG

In this case, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. No written submission has been filed. However, it is observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 147 days in filing of the appeal and dismissed the appeal of the assessee as un- admitted. We have perused Form No. 35 filed by the assessee which is the appeal form for filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee had mentioned reason for delay in Form No. 35. It

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others Civil Appeal Nos.8183-8184 of 2013 vide order dated 13.09.2013 has laid down following principles for deciding Condonation Application: Quote, “15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation. iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.

Thus, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that the pragmatic approach should be taken while dealing with condonation of delay. In these facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.