2016 (2) TMI 1049 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - Held that - The serious ailment of the Director, who was handling financial administrative matters, by taking a lenient view, the delay is condoned, therefore, we direct the ld. First Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the assessee on merit and in accordance with law. The assessee be given opportunity of being heard with further liberty to furnish evidence, if any, in support of its claim, thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing appeal due to serious illness of director.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns an appeal where the assessee challenged the order of the First Appellate Authority due to the rejection of the application for condonation of delay. The assessee contended that the director's serious illness, resulting in a paralytic attack, was a valid reason for the delay in filing the appeal. Despite the assessee's absence during the appeal hearing, the Tribunal considered the submissions and the facts on record. It was noted that there was an eight-month delay in filing the appeal, which was attributed to the director's health condition. The Tribunal acknowledged that filing an appeal is a statutory right, but emphasized the need for a liberal approach in cases of delay due to bona fide reasons. The Tribunal cited the importance of substantial justice over technical considerations, as highlighted in previous legal precedents.

The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & Ors., emphasizing the need to further the cause of substantial justice when technical aspects conflict. The court stressed that a judicious and liberal approach should be adopted in cases of condonation of delay, especially when a sufficient cause exists that is not due to negligence. The expression "sufficient cause" was interpreted to allow courts to apply the law meaningfully to serve the ends of justice. The Tribunal also cited another Supreme Court case, Vedabai Alia Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil, highlighting the importance of advancing substantial justice in interpreting "sufficient cause."

Considering the serious ailment of the director and the reasons for the delay, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay and directed the First Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on its merits. The assessee was granted the opportunity to be heard and present evidence in support of their claim. The Tribunal emphasized the need for vigilance in the future and directed the assessee to appear before the First Appellate Authority within a specified timeframe. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes only, with the decision pronounced in the presence of the Departmental Representative at the hearing.