2021 (3) TMI 1099 - AT - Income Tax

Delay in filing the present appeals by 43 days - sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time - HELD THAT - In the instant case, it has been stated by the assessee that due to the fact that the Principal of the school was busy in election duty, so cannot able contact to its C.A. for filing appeals but after election duty, he filed the appeals. Sawar is village where the school exists and it takes time to contact CA. In case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs MST Katiji 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT has held that the expression 'Sufficient Cause' employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner to sub-serves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. In the instant case, applying the same principles, we find that there is no culpable negligence or malafide on the part of the assessee in delayed filing of the present appeal and it does not stand to benefit by resorting to such delay more so considering the fact that it has applied for settlement of present dispute and payment of appropriate taxes. Therefore, in the factual matrix of the present case, we find that there exists sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred. In exercise of powers under section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay in filing the present appeals as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeals within the prescribed time and the appeals are hereby admitted for adjudication on merits.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against CIT(A) orders for A.Y. 2013-14, delay in filing appeals, application for condonation of delay, substantial justice vs. technical considerations, application under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, withdrawal of appeals.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against orders of the CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2013-14, wherein a delay of 43 days in filing the appeals was noted. The assessee applied for condonation of delay citing reasons such as the principal being busy in election duty, difficulty in contacting the CA due to the village location, and expressed willingness to prosecute the appeals. The assessee also referred to legal judgments supporting the contention for condonation of delay. The AR argued for condonation, emphasizing the absence of malafide intent and the application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The AR relied on a Delhi High Court decision for supporting the condonation of delay due to the intent to promote substantial justice.

The Departmental Representative (DR) opposed condonation of delay, highlighting the substantial delay of 43 days without reasonable cause presented by the assessee. The Tribunal examined the explanations provided by the assessee, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding "sufficient cause" and the balance between substantial justice and technical considerations. The Tribunal found no malafide intent in the delayed filing of the appeals, especially considering the application for dispute settlement and tax payment under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

Based on the principles of substantial justice and the absence of deliberate delay or malafide intent, the Tribunal exercised its powers under section 253(5) of the Act to condone the delay in filing the appeals. The appeals were admitted for adjudication on merits. Since the assessee applied for withdrawal of the appeals due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the issuance of Form No. 3 by the department, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, all appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn, with the order pronounced on 17/03/2021.