Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “SMC” : DELHI
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA
ORDER This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order Dated 24.09.2019 of the Ld. CIT(A)-37, New Delhi, relating to the A.Y. 2014-2015.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 27.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs.5,81,165/-. The A.O. completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 2 ITA.No.9563/Del./2019 Ms. Meenu Goel, Delhi.
20.12.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.11,81,220/- wherein he made addition of Rs.3,00,682/- under section 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 and Rs.2,99,367/- on account of long term capital gains on sale of property.
2.1. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, since there was a delay of 110 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal filed by the assessee on account of delay.
3. Aggrieved with such Order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds :
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal late by 110 days and dismissing the appeal as not admitted;
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in 3 ITA.No.9563/Del./2019 Ms. Meenu Goel, Delhi.
confirming the following additions made by the Assessing Officer : (i) Rs.3,00,682/- invoking Section 14A of the Act; (ii) Rs.2,99,367/- on account of long term capital gain on sale of property;
The above actions being erroneous unlawful and untenable it is prayed that the same must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief.”
4. I have heard both the sides and perused the record. I find the Ld. CIT(A) in the instant case did not admit the appeal filed by the assessee since there was a delay of 110 days in filing of the appeal before him. I find before the Ld. CIT(A) while explaining the delay it was submitted that assessee had applied for rectification of demand after receiving the assessment order, but, the rectification was rejected. Thus, the assessee did not file the appeal and appeal was filed after the due date. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not choose to file appeal
4 ITA.No.9563/Del./2019 Ms. Meenu Goel, Delhi. rather made a rectification application before A.O. after expiry of the date for filing of appeal and therefore, the logic given by the assessee is not correct and since the assessee did not substantiate sufficient cause for the delay in filing of the appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the same on account of delay in filing of the appeal. I find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST. Katiji & Ors., reported in [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while condoning the delay has laid down the following guidelines :
Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very
5 ITA.No.9563/Del./2019 Ms. Meenu Goel, Delhi. 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.
“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.
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 Ther There is no presumption that delay is occasioned 5. 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 6 ITA.No.9563/Del./2019 Ms. Meenu Goel, Delhi.
fact he runs a serious risk. It m It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not 6. 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.
4.1. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and in view of Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited (supra), I direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay of 110 days in filing the appeal before him and decide the issue on merit by admitting the appeal. The assessee is hereby directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and make necessary submissions without seeking any adjournment. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.