Landmark Cases on Appeals, Delay and Limitation
213 decisions, ranked by how many judgments on BharatTax rely on them.
If an appellate authority dismisses an appeal due to delay but then proceeds to decide the issues on merits, it is deemed that the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned.
An assessee can make a fresh claim before an appellate authority even if it was not made in the original return of income or a revised return was not filed. The purpose of tax appeals is to ascertain the correct tax liability according to law.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's powers under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act are broad and unrestricted, allowing it to entertain fresh claims for the first time, even if inconsistent with the original return. Limitations on raising new claims apply only to the Assessing Officer, not the Tribunal.
A High Court refuses to condone a significant delay in filing an appeal when the assessee fails to provide a 'sufficient cause' for the delay. The court emphasizes that assessees must be vigilant in pursuing their rights.
When condoning delay, courts should consider the cause behind the delay, not merely its length, to ensure substantial justice. A liberal approach is warranted in appropriate circumstances to subserve the cause of justice.
When an appeal is delayed due to the fault of a tax consultant or chartered accountant, the assessee is generally not held responsible, and the delay should be condoned if there is a sufficient cause.
An appeal under Section 33 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is considered in light of the relevant Rules and provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, including Order XLI, Rule 22, concerning appeals.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has the inherent power to grant a stay of recovery of demand as incidental or ancillary to its appellate jurisdiction, even if not expressly provided for in the Act.
Assessment orders made beyond the time limits prescribed under Section 153 of the Income-tax Act, considering the specific provisions for transfer pricing assessments, are liable to be quashed.
A party must provide a valid explanation for each day of delay in filing an appeal and demonstrate a reasonable cause that was beyond their control.
Refusing to condone delay in filing an appeal can lead to a meritorious case being dismissed without a hearing, thereby defeating the ends of justice. The approach to explaining delay should be rational, not pedantic.
A party seeking condonation of delay in filing a case must demonstrate a "sufficient cause", meaning an adequate and satisfactory reason that prevented them from approaching the court within the prescribed limitation period. Mere negligence or lack of diligence is not a sufficient cause.
An assessee can file a cross-objection under Section 253(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even if they have not filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A).
