9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir remedy promptly. Considering the reasons set out for condonation of delay before the CIT(A) that, the company commenced its operations in A.Y. 2008-09 itself and assessee’s operations were located in and around Lucknow and, therefore, it was difficult to organize the logistics in the initial period. The Senior Manager, Finance, who was responsible and entrusted with the Income Tax matters had quit the job on 15.12.2010, i.e. immediately after the passing of the assessment order. The new incumbent was not aware of such a statutory time limit and, therefore, immediately when the management in Bombay came to know about such a delay, took immediate steps for filing the appeal, CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the assessee’s appeal a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore us, the learned senior counsel, Shri Farrokh V Irani submitted that there was a delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A) by 72 days. The reason for condonation of delay before the CIT(A) have been incorporated by the CIT(A) at page 2 of the appellate order, which for the sake of ready reference is reproduced here under: The Assessee Company is in the business of manufacture and job work of bus bodies. The company commenced its operations in the impugned assessment year, that is, in the financial year ended March 31, 2008 and hence the year in respect of which appeal is filed is the first year in which operations have started. Being the first year of assessment and the fact that assessee s operations were located in and around L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to condone this delay in filing of appeal under Sec. 249(3) of the Income Tax Act. We hope you will accede to our solemn request and admit the enclosed appeal. However, the learned CIT(A) rejected the assessee s contention on the ground that there is no sufficient and reasonable cause for filing appeal after the expiry of statutory time limit. Mr. Irani submitted that the word sufficient cause should be construed liberally and if there is no mala fide or deliberate delay in filing of the appeal, the delay should be condoned. The reasons which has been set out before the CIT(A) for condonation of delay itself goes to show that there was no mala fide or deliberate delay in filing of the appeal. In support of his contention, he r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... party for a legal remedy. The word sufficient cause has to be construed liberally because primary function of the appellate authority or court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time limit fixed for filing the appeals is to see where there is dilatory tactics by the parties or to seek their remedy promptly. This proposition has been well explained by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of N Balakrishnan vs. M Krishnamurthy (supra), wherein the Hon ble Apex Court observed and held as under: 9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss. Thus, we hold that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the assessee s appeal as not admitted on the ground that it is barred by limitation. In the facts ofthe assessee s case, we condone the delay of 72 days in filing of appeal before the CIT(A) and direct the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits. Accordingly, the appeal is restored back to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merits and in accordance with law after giving due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 29th day of May 2015. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
