“Section 249(2)(c)”
The decision most relied on for Section 249(2)(c) is National Textiles v. CIT (249 ITR 125), cited in 134 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 249(2)(c)
The levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) requires material evidence that the assessed amount does not represent the assessee's income and proof of conscious concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. A penalty cannot be sustained merely because income is assessed on an estimation basis without positive evidence of concealment.
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.
Courts should adopt a liberal, justice-oriented approach when considering applications for condonation of delay, understanding 'sufficient cause' as an elastic term to be applied pragmatically in each case, ensuring justice is served rather than legalizing injustice.
Statutory provisions prescribing limitation periods must be applied strictly. Delay in filing an appeal can only be condoned for sufficient, bona fide, and well-substantiated cause, requiring due diligence from the appellant, and not merely on vague or general grounds.
For reopening an assessment, the Assessing Officer must have a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, not merely a reason to suspect. The Assessing Officer needs tangible material to form this belief.
The delay in filing an appeal must be explained with a sufficient cause for the entire period. The explanation must be real, reasonable, and fit the specific facts and circumstances of the case to warrant condonation.
Denial of exemption under Section 11 to a charitable trust should be limited to the extent of funds diverted or utilized in violation of Section 13(2)(b) read with Section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, and not the entire exemption or cancellation of registration.
Courts should adopt a liberal approach when considering applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals. Refusing to condone delay can lead to a meritorious case being dismissed on technical grounds, thereby defeating the cause of justice.
