SRI JADU PRASAD JADOB,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The ld. CIT(Appeals), however, declined to condone the delay on the part of the assessee in filing his appeal on the ground that no evidence was filed by the assessee to prove that the relevant documents were misplaced as stated in the condonation petition. We are unable to subscribe to this view taken by the ld. CIT(Appeals). As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition –vs.- Mst. Katiji & Others [167 ITR 471 (SC)], “sufficient cause” for the purpose of condonation of delay should be interpreted with a view to do even- handed justice on merits in preference to approach which scuttles a decision on merits. Explaining further, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the power to condone delay is conferred with a view to enable the courts to do substantial justice to litigants by disposing of the cases on merits. If the facts of the present case as well as the reasons given by the assessee for the marginal delay of 24 days in filing his appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) are considered in the light of the spirit propounded by ./2014 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 3 of 3 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Katiji & Others (supra), we are of the view that the ld. CIT(Appeals) ought to have condoned the delay on the part of the assessee in filing his appeal in the interest of substantial justice and should have disposed of the said appeal of the assessee on merit. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and remit the matter back to him with a direction to condone the delay on the part of the assesese in filing his appeal and to dispose of the said appeal on merit.