Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM
Mudhiyor Balar Kuduma Grama Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Pannai, Exemption Ward 1, Family Village Farm, Chennai. Kasam Katpadi, Vellore 632 007. [PAN: AAAAM 0870B] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. M. Abhishek, FCA ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Shri S. Easwar, IRS, JCIT. सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 20.05.2024 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] ADDL./JCIT (A)-1 PUNE dated 15.02.2024 for Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and has filed the return income for AY 2022-23 on 07.11.2022 u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The said return was processed under section 143(1) on 04.04.2023 raising the total demand of Rs.1,25,96,920/-.
3. As against the intimation under section 143(1) dated 04.04.2023, the assessee has filed an appeal u/s 250 of CIT(A) with a delay of 215 days.
4. As per Section 249(2) of the Act appeal shall be presented within 30 days to the CIT(A) which can be condoned by the CIT(A) u/s 249(3) of the Act if he satisfies that the appellant on sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the said period. The assessee represented before the Ld. CIT(A) and pointed out column 15 of the Form 35 which states as under: ‘’It is humbly submitted that no communication received or sent to the assessee nor was there any service of the same. Only when a demand was raised and the bank accounts were frozen did it come to the light of the appellant of the same. Hence, the appellant sought the advice of their consultant to file the appeal and immediately filed the same, within 1 week of the banks being frozen’’ However, Ld.CIT(A) not satisfied with the reasons explained by the assessee in column 15 of the Form 35, has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in-limine.
5. The said approach of the CIT(A) is neither reasonable nor adopted liberal approach. In our view the CIT(A) ought have condoned the delay and decide the appeal on merit. 6. How the power of condonation of delay is to be exercised, has been explained by the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others- [167 ITR 471 (SC) @ Pg. 472] 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 the 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 sub serves the ends of justice that being the life- purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that the 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. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:
1. 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 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." 2. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that 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 and pragmatic manner.
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 vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay.
There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs serious risk.
It must be grasped that the 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." 7. Here we would also like to refer the finding of the Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan V. M. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998 SC 3222. The Apex Court held as under:- "11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit.
During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for laundering the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maximinterest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.
A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words 'sufficient cause' under section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain V. Kuntal Kumari, AIR 1969 SC 575 and State of West Bengal V. the Administrator, Howah Muni-capacity, AIR 1972 SC 749."
We have pursued reasons stated in the column 15 of the Form 35 and we treat such reason as ‘sufficient cause’ and reasonable which cannot be termed as dilatory or frivolous.
In the light of the above discussions, considering to adopt pragmatic approach and with an intention to render substantial justice, we find that, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of appeal before the CIT(A) by the assessee hence condone the delay. The CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay keeping in view of the laws laid down by the Apex Court in the above cases. Therefore, without expressing anything on the merit of the case, we incline to remit the file to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merit after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Since we have set aside to Ld.CIT(A), we do not intend to adjudicate each ground separately.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29th day of May, 2024 at Chennai.