MODERN MACHINERY STORE,ALWAR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, J.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A)

Alwar dated 01.06.2016 pertaining to A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee has raised

the following grounds of appeal :-

2 ITA No. 718/JP/2016 M/s Modern Machinery Store, Alwar.

14000.00 and 26500.00 paid on account of donations and gifts within the meaning of section 37(1) of the IT Tax 1961 and the CIT(A) has erred in not giving any finding thereon.”

appeal preferred before ld. CIT(A) was dismissed on account of delay. He

submitted that the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts that, there was no

deliberate or malafide for not preferring the appeal within the limitation

prescribed under the law. He submitted that the delay was caused due to

bonafide reasons. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme court rendered in the case Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji

& Others 167 ITR 471 (SC).

submissions.

on records and gone through the order of the authorities below. Under the

facts of the present case the contention of the assessee is that the assessee

could not prefer an appeal as the order remain with the accountant and he

forgot to hand over the same to the assessee, when it came to the notice of

the assessee he project the C.A. for filing the appeal. The Hon’ble Supreme

court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others 167

ITR 471 (SC) has held as under:-

“ The legislature has conferred power to condone delay by enacting section 5 o the Limitation Act, 1963, in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on

3 ITA No. 718/JP/2016 M/s Modern Machinery Store, Alwar. merits. The expression “sufficient cause” in section 5 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. A justifiably liberal approach has to be adopted on principle. “every day’ delay must be explained” does not imply a pedantic approach. The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigations, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an evenhanded manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the State is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. “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 a vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.”

Respectively following ratio laid down by the Hon’be Supreme Court, we

hereby condone the delay and restore the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A)

for decision afresh on merit.

Thus, Ground no. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Ground no. 2 and 3 are also restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for decision

on merit.

allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday, the 22nd day of March

2017.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼Hkkxpan½ ¼ dqy Hkkjr ½ (BHAGCHAND) (Kul Bharat) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member

4 ITA No. 718/JP/2016 M/s Modern Machinery Store, Alwar. Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 22 /03/2017. Pooja/ आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@ M/s Modern Machinery Store, Alwar. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ACIT, Circle-1, Alwar. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 718/JP/2016) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत