9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) to decide the appeal on the merits after giving opportunity of hearing in accordance with the law - Income-tax Appeal No. 25 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2005 - Judge(s) : R. K. AGRAWAL., RAJES KUMAR. JUDGMENT The present appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated August 14, 2003, for the assessment year 1997-98 by which the Tribunal has rejected the appeal of the appellant filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated January 21, 2002. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) rejected the appeal as barred by limitation. The question for consideration is whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal. We have heard counsel for the parties. The matter is listed for admission of the appeal. With the consent of the parties, the same is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have taken a pedantic view while considering the application for condonation of delay. It has been consistently held by the apex court that in the matter of condonation of delay a liberal and pragmatic view should be taken. The reasons given by the appellant for the delay appears to be sufficient cause and, accordingly, the delay is liable to be condoned. The law of limitation is enshrined in the maxim intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, commonsense and pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the 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. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a seriou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under: "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach ...." In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Misra [1977] 47 Comp Cas 453; AIR 1976 SC 237, the hon'ble Supreme Court held that discretion given by section 5 should not be defined or crystallized so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. In Brij Index S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
