Loading ITAT cases…
114 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 125 days, subject to the assessee paying a cost of ₹10,000/- to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. The Tribunal noted the assessee's casualness but chose to provide a final opportunity for a decision on merits, given the potential for substantial justice.
The Tribunal held that considering the assessee's age, limited technical knowledge, and the circumstances explained in the affidavit, there was sufficient cause for the delay. The principles of natural justice require affording the assessee an opportunity to present her case. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the impugned order was set aside for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) despite several notices. However, in the interest of substantive justice and to ensure the principles of natural justice are followed, the matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the explanation for the delay was vague, general, and lacked demonstrable bona fides, indicating indifference on the part of the assessee. The court found that the assessee did not act with due diligence.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were barred by limitation due to the inordinate delay of 401 days, which remained wholly unexplained. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had failed to file any application for condonation of delay or provide any affidavit or documentary evidence to explain the reasons for the delay, despite being duly notified by the Registry. This inaction was considered not merely negligence but a complete disregard for procedural discipline. The Tribunal reiterated the legal position that while a liberal approach may be adopted in interpreting "sufficient cause" for condonation, it cannot extend to condoning utter negligence or inaction. The principle that "law helps the vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights" was invoked. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals as they were not maintainable without a properly filed application demonstrating sufficient cause. Both appeals were dismissed in-limine as infructuous and barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were barred by limitation due to the inordinate delay of 401 days, which remained wholly unexplained. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had failed to file any application for condonation of delay or provide any affidavit or documentary evidence to explain the reasons for the delay, despite being duly notified by the Registry. This inaction was considered not merely negligence but a complete disregard for procedural discipline. The Tribunal reiterated the legal position that while a liberal approach may be adopted in interpreting "sufficient cause" for condonation, it cannot extend to condoning utter negligence or inaction. The principle that "law helps the vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights" was invoked. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals as they were not maintainable without a properly filed application demonstrating sufficient cause. Both appeals were dismissed in-limine as infructuous and barred by limitation.
The CIT(A) partly accepted the assessee's explanation, reducing the addition to 50% of the cash deposits made in old currency notes (₹9,38,500), considering the assessee's past business and the timing of cash withdrawals.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a sufficient cause, as the assessee was deprived of an opportunity to present their case due to a communication lapse by the NFAC. The principles of natural justice and fair play necessitate an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance throughout the proceedings and the failure to provide supporting documents. However, in the interest of substantial justice, a final opportunity is granted to the assessee to present evidence. A nominal cost of Rs. 5,000/- is imposed for past non-compliance.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of approximately 30 days in filing the appeal before it. The Tribunal reasoned that the expression "sufficient cause" under Section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be liberally construed to advance substantial justice, as consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases like Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy. The explanation provided by the assessee, involving non-receipt of the order in physical mode and family medical circumstances, was considered reasonable and bona fide. The delay was not regarded as inordinate, and no element of deliberate inaction or mala fide conduct was found. The Tribunal followed the ratio that a liberal approach is warranted where no gross negligence or deliberate delay is established. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits. Furthermore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) which had rejected the appeal in limine. The matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to reconsider the assessee's application for condonation of delay and thereafter adjudicate the appeal on merits after affording due opportunity of hearing and verifying the factual matrix and evidences. The Tribunal held that substantial justice should prevail over procedural technicalities, and the assessee had demonstrated bona fide intent. The first ground of appeal was allowed, rendering other grounds academic. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submissions and did not provide a reasoned order, violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) did not examine whether the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance as per Section 273B.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a credible and substantiated explanation for the cash deposits, thus failing to discharge the onus under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c). The Ld. CIT(A) correctly upheld the penalty.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to file evidence in support of their claim.
The Tribunal held that while the evidence of physical filing was not presented to the CIT(A), the transition to e-filing was an administrative reform. Procedural technicalities should not prevent substantial justice, especially considering the principles of natural justice and the CBDT's circular.