SHANKAR JAYRAM SHELAR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD6(1),PUNE, PUNE

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 57 days in filling appeal and dismissed the appeal of the Assessee on account of delay. The assessee had filed submission before the Ld. CIT(A) stating that the verification of UID was creating problem and therefore the assessee could not file appeal within the time. The assessee also submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that

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. ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the

In these facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall file all the necessary details. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.