ARVINDKUMAR DAYALAL CHAVDA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (2) (3), RAJKOT

On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that assessee under consideration a Retired Government Servant, he had worked in Department of Telecommunications and in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, (BSNL) which are serving the India for providing telecom services. The part delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT( A) was because of COVID-19, pandemic disease. The sufficient cause was explained by the assessee, therefore, after condonation of delay, the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

We have heard both the parties. While considering a delay in filing the appeal, the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) laid down six principles. For the purpose of convenience, the principles laid down by the Apex Court are reproduced hereunder: (1) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late (2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious' matter being thrown 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 ITA. 841/Rjt/2024 AY.2019-20 Arvindkumar D. Chavda delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, commonsense and pragmatic manner. (4) When substantial justice and technical consideration 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. (5) 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. (6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.

We note that there is a statutory limit prescribed for filing of appeal in the Act. The invocation of the power to condone any delay, major or minor, in observing such time limit is possible only on the satisfaction of the authorities, regarding the appellant having been unable to file the appeal in time due to sufficient cause. The appellant cannot be entitled to automatic admission of appeal filed after the time limit. The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation.

However, the words ‘sufficient cause’ should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice where no negligence nor ITA. 841/Rjt/2024 AY.2019-20 Arvindkumar D. Chavda inaction nor want of bona fides is imputable to the applicant [Bharat Auto Center v. CIT 282 ITR 366]. We note that in assessee`s case under consideration, the part delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) has occurred due to COVID-19 pandemic disease and for rest delay in filing the appeal, the assessee has explained the sufficient cause.Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the affidavit as well the delay condonation, application, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. We, accordingly, condone the delay, in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 8.Since the Ld.CIT(A), has not adjudicated the assessee`s appeal on merit. Hence, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Ld. CIT(A). We note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits.

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