MANECKJI RUSTOMJI PATEL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX CPC, BANGALURU, MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN () Assessment Year: 2014-15
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated
12.08.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) – 1, Chandigarh [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2014-15 rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay in filing for more than 280 days.
Briefly stated, private specific trust It is stated on behalf the hands of the beneficiaries, hence n income declaring Nil 143(1) of the Incom intimation order wa Rs.84,41,730/- was Trust as taxable in rectification applicati said rectification app Centre (CPC) on 16.0 by the assessee on application, the asse order before the Ld. CIT(A), the intimatio 08.07.2015 which wa therefore, the appeal days from the date o on 30.05.2016 i.e. af admitted the appeal o more than 280 days three grounds. First Maneckji Ru ITA No facts of the case are that the wherein the shares of beneficiar f of the Trust that income was o beneficiaries at the rate app no tax was payable by the Trus l income filed by the Trust was me-tax Act, 1961 (in short as issued on 08.07.2015, wher determined treating the total the hands of the Trust. The ion against the intimation on 1 plication was decided by the Cen 02.2016, which is claimed to hav n 03.05.2016. After rejection ssee chose to file appeal agains . CIT(A) on 30.05.2016. Accord on order u/s 143(1) of the Act as served upon the assessee on l against said order was to be of receipt of order, whereas the a fter a delay of 280 days. The Ld of the assessee stating that ther s. The Ld. CIT(A) has rejected tly, there is no provision for e ustomji Patel Trust 2 o. 5290/MUM/2024 e assessee is a ries are specific. offered to tax in plicable to the st. The return of s processed u/s ‘the Act’) and rein demand of l income of the e assessee filed 18.08.2015. The ntral Processing ve been received of rectification st the intimation ding to the Ld. was passed on 25.07.2015 and filed within 30 appeal was filed . CIT(A) has un- re was a delay of d mainly on the exclusion of the period during which under the Act. Secon u/s 154 of the Ac quantum of the addi for condonation of th 3. We have heard the relevant material appeal before the ld the section 249(3) of the delay if he satisf presenting the appea sufficient cause for c Court in the case of (1987) 167 ITR 471 (i) Ordinarily, a liti late. (ii) Refusing to con thrown out at th As against this w that a cause wou (iii) "Every day's del approach should delay? The doc pragmatic mann (iv) When substant against each o preferred for th injustice being d Maneckji Ru ITA No h the assessee was seeking alte ndly, there was no evidence to p ct was served on 03.05.2016 ition of the demand raised cann he delay. rival submissions of the parti l on record. The limitation peri CIT(A) u/s 249(2) of the Act is f the Act empowers the Ld. CIT fied that assessee had sufficien al within the limitation period. condonation of the delay the H Collector of Land Acquisitio (SC) has laid down following six igant does not stand to benefit by lo ndone delay can result in a meritori he very threshold and cause of justic when delay is condoned the highest th uld be decided on merits after hearing lay must be explained" does not mea d be taken. Why not every hour's dela ctrine must be applied in a rationa ner. tial justice and technical considera other, cause of substantial justice he other side cannot claim to have done because of a non-deliberate delay ustomji Patel Trust 3 o. 5290/MUM/2024 ernative remedy prove that order 6. Thirdly, the not be a ground ies and perused iod for filing the s of 30 days but T(A) to condone nt cause for not . For evaluating Hon’ble Supreme n v. Katiji AIR x principles: odging an appeal ious matter being ce being defeated. hat can happen is g the parties. an that a pedantic ay, every second's al common-sense ations are pitted deserves to be e vested right in y.
(v)
There is no pres account of culpa does not stand serious risk.
(vi)
It must be grasp power to legaliz capable of remov
3.1 We find that be for the delay due to We find that Hon’ble
Charitable Trust v
357 held that in ord prime importance, th liberal interpretation
Kathpaliya v. Lakh refusal to condone th thus it would be a Bombay court in the 312 ITR 193 (Bomb always have relevanc condoned by Court a conduct or normal co
India Insurance Co
507 (SC) Hon’ble Sup is whether there is a or ruse and if neithe
Maneckji Ru
ITA No sumption that delay is occasioned d able negligence, or on account of mal to benefit by resorting to delay. In sped that judiciary is respected not ze injustice on technical grounds b ving injustice and is expected to do so fore us, the assessee has expla availing of alternative remedy e Madras High Court in the ca
Dy. CIT [2006] 154 Taxman der to advance substantial jus he expression "sufficient cause" s
. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in mir Singh AIR 1984 SC 1744
he delay results in grave miscar ground to condoning the dela case of Ornate Traders (P.) Ltd bay) held that expression 'suffic cy to reasonableness and action and it should fall within realm of onduct of a litigant. In the case
. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi ( preme Court held that what is t any taint of malafide or element er is present, legal advice hone ustomji Patel Trust
4
o. 5290/MUM/2024
deliberately, or on la fides. A litigant n fact, he runs a on account of its but because it is ."
ained the reason of rectification.
se of Sreenivas n 377/280 ITR tice which is of should receive a n the case of OP
4 has held that rriage of justice, ay. The Hon’ble d. v. ITO (2008) cient cause' will ns, which can be f normal human e of Concord of 1979) 118 ITR to be looked into of recklessness stly sought and actually given, must the delay. The Hon’bl v. Gobardhan Sao, pedantic or hyper-tec assessee for condo particularly where a and refusal for condo irreparable injury to inception. We find th file appeal against i availing the remedy order. In our opinio recklessness or ruse delay. The delay falls
3.2 The object of pr expedite and advance ratio of the decision condone the delay in Authority. Since the therefore we restrain case. We accordingly matter is restored accordance with law
Maneckji Ru
ITA No be treated as ‘sufficient cause le Supreme Court in the case of AIR 2002 SC 1201 held th chnical view, the explanation fu onation of delay should no ssessee had arguable points o onation of delay will cause erro the aggrieved party by termin at in the instant case, the asses intimation order u/s 143(1) o of the rectification against the on, there is no element of a e in the cause explained by th under the normal human cond escribing the time period for filin e cause for the sufficient justice ns referred above, we feel it n filing the appeal before the Ld
Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicate n ourselves giving any finding y, set aside the order of the back to him for adjudicatin w. Needless to mention that ustomji Patel Trust
5
o. 5290/MUM/2024
e’ for condoning f Ram Nath Sao hat by taking a urnished by the ot be rejected f law on merits oneous loss and nating lis at the ssee preferred to of the Act after said intimation any malafide or he assessee for duct of litigant.
ng the appeal to e. In view of the appropriate to . First Appellate ed on merit and on merit of the Ld. CIT(A) and ng on merit in t the Ld. First
Appellate Authority heard to the assessee
4. In the result, statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in (RAJ KUMAR C
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 13/01/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.
////
Maneckji Ru
ITA No shall insure adequate opport e.
the appeal of the assessee n the open Court on 13/01/20
- CHAUHAN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :
BY ORDER
(Assistant Re
ITAT, Mu ustomji Patel Trust
6
o. 5290/MUM/2024
tunity of being is allowed for 025. d/-
KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai