VISHWAKARMA SHRAM SEVA NYASH,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, KAILASH HEIGHT

1 At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 150 days in filing both the appeals by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an applications for condonation of delay with following prayers and the assessee to this effect also filed an affidavit also :- “With reference to the above subject, we want to state that the assessee trust was unable to respond to the CIT order within the stipulated timeframe, during the period when the CIT order was sent, the family of the president of the assessee trust encountered unexpected emergencies that demanded her immediate attention and involvement. So there is delay in filing appeal. Further, requesting the condonation of delay, we are relying on the following decisions:- 1. Your honour, it has been held by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai in a similar case in the case of The Phoenix Mills Ltd V/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax:ITA No. 6240/M/2007 In the above case, the delay of 1358 days was condoned of the assessee and matter set- aside to CIT(Appeals) and it was held that the delay can be condoned if there exists sufficient cause for the delay. 2. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION V/s, MST. KATLJI AND OTHERS-(1987) 167 ITR 471(SC): In the above case it was held that the delay can be condoned if there exists sufficient cause for the delay and the reasons for the same is properly evidenced. The appeal should be disposed of on merit after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the sides. 3. STATE OF UP VA. BAHADUR SINGH & OTHERS(1983)142 ITR 745(SC)- It was judicially decided that where the explanation for the delay is convincing and reasonable, a writ petition cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that the same was filed after a long time. 4. ANIL SONI VA, ITO (1992) 52 TAXMAN48,49 (J&K) Laches is not absolute bar if the court is otherwise satisfied with the justness of the petitioner's claim that relief can be granted to the petitioner who approaches the court even somewhat belatedly. The cases highlighted above clearly specifies that merely delay in filing cannot be the ground for rejection of an appeal is the reason that the legislature itself has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the court to do the substantial justice to the parties by disposing of matter on "merits". The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the court to apply the law in a meaning manner which sub serves the ends of justice- that being the life purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. 5. Vedabai Alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil and Others- 2001 (132) E.LT. 15 (S.C.) (2002) 253 ITR 799 In the above case Court had held that "In exercising discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone delay for sufficient cause in not preferring an appeal or other application within the period prescribed, courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor and calls for a more cautious approach, in the latter case no such consideration may arise, and such a case deserves a liberal approach. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard. The Court has to exercise its discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the expression "sufficient cause the principles of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. The expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. There remains no ground for the denial of the acceptance of appeal of the assessee trust. Therefore, your good self is requested to please condone the delay of 150 days, as your acceptance can render natural justice to the assessee. Hope you will consider our request and oblige.”