9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 230 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of the delay of about 07 months in filing the appeal before CIT(A) - HELD THAT - Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown-out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Thus we deem it fit and appropriate to condone the delay of about 07 months in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remit the matter in issue back to the file of learned CIT(A) for his afresh adjudication on merits by affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment are:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Condonation of Delay Relevant legal framework and precedents: The legal framework for condonation of delay is guided by principles established in judicial precedents, notably the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji, which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The court held that refusing to condone delay could result in meritorious matters being dismissed prematurely, thereby defeating the cause of justice. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the basis of delay without considering the merits of the case. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) should have provided reasons for the decision and adjudication as mandated by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal considered the submissions of the assessee, who argued for the condonation of the delay, and the Department's stance, which supported the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to balance the technicality of delay with the need for substantial justice. Application of law to facts: Applying the principles from MST Katiji, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to condone the delay of approximately seven months, thereby allowing the matter to be adjudicated on its merits. Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal acknowledged the Department's argument that rectification proceedings and appellate proceedings are distinct. However, it prioritized the need to decide the case on its merits over procedural technicalities. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the delay should be condoned, and the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on the merits, ensuring the assessee is given an adequate opportunity to present their case. 2. Dismissal Without Merits Adjudication Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act mandates that the CIT(A) must provide reasons for decisions, ensuring that appeals are adjudicated on their merits. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not fulfill the obligation to adjudicate the appeal on its merits, as required by the statute. By dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of delay, the CIT(A) failed to provide a reasoned decision. Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal reviewed the procedural history and found that the CIT(A) did not address the substantive issues raised by the assessee, thereby not adhering to the statutory requirements. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the statutory requirement of Section 250(6) to the facts, determining that the CIT(A) must consider the merits of the appeal and provide a reasoned decision. Treatment of competing arguments: While the Department argued for upholding the CIT(A)'s order, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of a merits-based adjudication, which the CIT(A) failed to provide. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) must adjudicate the appeal on its merits and provide a reasoned decision, as required by law. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's principle from MST Katiji, emphasizing that "when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred." Core principles established: The judgment reinforces the principle that procedural delays should not overshadow the need for substantive justice, and that appellate authorities must provide reasoned decisions based on the merits of the case. Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, condoning the delay and remitting the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on the merits, with instructions to provide the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.
|
