PASHANKAR AUTO WORKS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), PUNE, PUNE

Dissatisfied assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC with a delay of 496 days. The ld.CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay.

The assessee further aggrieved is now in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the impugned order.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record before us. It is an admitted position that the assessee has not participated in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer as well as ld.CIT(A) resulting in passing of the exparte orders. Further, on perusal of the impugned order, it would Pashankar Auto Works Pvt. Ltd.

In this context, we would like to quote the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 SC . In the said Judgment, their Lordships have given certain principles based on which, the issue with regard to the delay can be approached and the said portion of the order of the Judgment cited supra is reproduced hereunder:

Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. Pashankar Auto Works Pvt. Ltd.

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.

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 and pragmatic manner.

When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the 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.

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.

It must be grasped that the 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.

1 The Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT, 389 ITR 250 (Bom.) has held that in the matter of condonation of delay an overall view in the larger interest of justice has to be taken. None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless the Court of law or the Tribunal/Appellate Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bonafides. Pashankar Auto Works Pvt. Ltd.

2 In the light of above judicial precedents, we are inclined to condone the delay of 496 days in filing of appeal before ld.CIT(A).

Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances in the instant case and without dwelling into merits of the issues, the matter is remitted back to the file of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo adjudication. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Finding of the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is set-aside and Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

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

अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” बच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune.

गाड फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,