“Section 253(1)(c)”
The decision most relied on for Section 253(1)(c) is Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others (118 ITR 507), cited in 268 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 253(1)(c)
For condoning delay, the term 'sufficient cause' must be interpreted liberally and purposively to advance justice. Delay not tainted by mala fides, gross negligence, or recklessness, and based on honestly obtained legal advice, constitutes sufficient cause.
When substantial justice and technical considerations are in conflict, substantial justice should be prioritized. Condoning delay requires a cautious approach without malafide or dilatory tactics, and 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice.
When substantial justice and procedural technicalities are in conflict, especially in cases involving non-deliberate delay, the cause of substantial justice must be prioritized. The opposing party cannot claim a vested right to benefit from injustice due to such delays.
A delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned if it is attributable to the assessee's negligence or inaction, such as misplacing and forgetting the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. The provisions relating to limitation apply with rigour, and a lack of due care and attention is not a sufficient reason for condonation.
The Assessing Officer must record clear satisfaction in the assessment order that the assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars, for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Without such recorded satisfaction, the penalty proceedings lack jurisdiction and are unsustainable in law.
The principle of 'sufficient cause' for condoning a delay in filing an appeal should be construed liberally, particularly when the assessee would not have gained from the delay or when the delay arose from reasonable grounds like wrong professional advice.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can condone significant delays in filing an appeal, such as 180 days, if the appeal was filed after a Supreme Court judgment clarified the legal position, demonstrating a reasonable cause for the delay.
There is no legal presumption that every person knows the law, and the maxim 'ignorantia juris non excusat' does not imply universal legal awareness. This principle is applied when evaluating whether a taxpayer's genuine belief or ignorance of law impacts their liability for penalties or constitutes reasonable cause.
