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

Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, A.M..: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXIV, Kolkata dated 01.11.2013 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limini by treating the same as barred by limitation after declining to condone the delay on the part of the assessee in filing the same.

handed over to his accountant Sri Saha on 02.04.2013 to consult with advocate about the matter.

That on same day myself with Sri Saha after searching all the documents at my office, had been able to locate the said copy of order and demand notice in a file and the same was handed over on the same day to my advocate for making out the necessary papers for filing an appeal and the said appeal papers has been handed over to me on 15.05.2013.

That the delay in filing of the said appeal arises out of misplacement of the related documents without which the appeal papers could not be made out and there was no deliberate or wilful neglect in this respect by the petitioner.

That your petitioner states that since the delay was beyond the control of the petitioner your petitioner earnestly prays before your Honour to condone the said unintentional delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merit so as to render justice”.

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.