CUTTACK CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In reply, ld CIT/Sr DR opposed the condonation petitions filed before the Tribunal as also supported the orders passed by ld CIT(A)/NFAC/JCIT(A), NFAC.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of impugned orders for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14,2014-15, 2017-18 & 2020-21, shows that the ld CIT(A), NFAC has dismissed the appeals due to non- representation despite giving sufficient opportunities to substantiate the grounds of appeal

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. 3. "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 nondeliberate 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 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.”

It is sufficed to say that the Hon’ble Courts are unanimous in their approach to propound that whenever the reasons assigned by an applicant for explaining the delay, then such reasons are to be construed with a justice- oriented approach. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, the assessee runs a serious risk. In the instant case, the delay was attributable specifically due to faceless regime as the notices were sent through online only. Due to some reasons or other, the notice of hearing was not in the knowledge of the assessee, as stated in the condonation petition.

In the light of above discussion, we are of the considered view that the assessee in its averments has made out a clear case that there was sufficient cause being its control prevented from filing the appeals before the ld CIT(A) in time. The assessee is diligent in its responsibility as the appeals have been filed before the Tribunal against the orders of the ld JCIT(A). We, accordingly, condone the delay in filing the appeals before the ld JCIT(A) in both the assessment years under consideration and set aside the issues to the file of the ld CIT(A) as he has not applied his mind on facts on the merit of the issues. In other appeals, the ld CIT(A), NFAC has dismissed the appeals for non- representation only and ld CIT (A) has not adjudicated the issue on merits. Therefore, we remit the issues to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee will be liberty to raise any plea on merit for all the appeals. It is also noticed that the claim of provision for overdue interest for the assessment year 2008-09 was before the AO, which has not been considered. Therefore, this plea of the assessee is also to be considered while disposing the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 as per law.

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 2/12/2025.