2014 (4) TMI 745 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay Delay of 67 days - Restoration of appeal - Held that - CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal without giving any verdict in regard to merits of the addition - filing of appeal is a right granted under the statute to the assessee and is not an automatic privilege, therefore, the assessee is expected to be vigilant in adhering to the manner and mode in which the appeals are to be filed in terms of the relevant provisions of the Act. Relying upon Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME Court - The expression sufficient cause is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in meaningful manner which sub serves the end of justice that being the life purpose of the existence of the institution of courts - When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred - Without going into merits of addition and keeping in view the interest of substantial justice, the delay is condoned and the appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for deciding on merits Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal and condonation of delay.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2007-08 under Section 143(3) of the I.T. Act. The assessee argued that there was a delay in filing the appeal, and the CIT(A) did not condone the delay despite the reasons provided in the affidavit filed along with the appeal memo. The assessee raised specific grounds regarding the delay, lack of opportunity for hearing, and the merits of the case concerning re-opening under Section 148, disallowance under Section 14A, and disallowance of transaction charges.

The Tribunal considered the delay in filing the appeal and emphasized the importance of assessing whether the reasons for the delay were sufficient and bona fide. It highlighted the judicial stance that while filing an appeal is a right, a liberal approach should be adopted in cases of delays due to genuine reasons to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Refusal to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being dismissed at the outset, leading to injustice. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's view that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations in condoning delays.

Citing the Supreme Court's decisions in the cases of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Vedabhai vs. Santaram, the Tribunal stressed the need for a cautious approach towards inordinate delays, ensuring no malafide intentions or dilatory tactics. It reiterated that the expression "sufficient cause" should be liberally construed to serve the cause of substantial justice. Ultimately, without delving into the merits of the addition, the Tribunal, in the interest of substantial justice, condoned the delay and remanded the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of balancing technical considerations with substantial justice in matters of condonation of delay to uphold the principles of fairness and equity in legal proceedings.