MR. VENKATESH E (HUF),BENGALURU vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEALS - 3, BANGALORE

At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the appeal was filed with the delay of 107 days before Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that assessee was under a medical emergency of his mother, who was living in Chitradurga. Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee submitted that he had sought adjournment on various dates and has also Page 2 of substantiated his inability to present the case by filing the doctor’s certificate. It was submitted by assessee that in a medical condition of memory loss and imbalance assessee could not leave his mother, assessee had requested for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before CIT(A) which was denied.

The Ld. AR submitted that assessee has not been heard on merits since it was not admitted by the Ld. CIT(A).

On the contrary, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the orders passed by the authorities below. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us.

The Ld. CIT(A) observed that assessee’s case is hard and calls for sympathy, but still the appeal was not admitted. In our view, this is a fit case that the appeal could have been admitted by the Ld. CIT(A) and the issues should be considered on merits in accordance with law.

Considering the circumstances under which the delay was caused in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal and that nothing contrary could be established by the revenue before us. We place reliance on following observations by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 wherein, Hon’ble Court observed as under:- “The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits ". The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy.

2. 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. ......................................................1.Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.”