9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 999X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substantial justice to litigants by disposing of the cases on merits. Considering we condone the delay and matter is restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding on merit after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. - Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA Nos. 1465 And 1466/JP/2018 - - - Dated:- 14-5-2019 - Shri Ramesh C. Sharma, AM And Shri Vijay Pal Rao, JM For the Assessee : Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA) For the Revenue : Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT) ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders of the ld. CIT (A)-3, Jaipur both dated 23rd October, 2018 arising from the order passed under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the IT Act for the assessment years 2011-12 and 12-13 respectively. The assessee has raised the common grounds in these appeals. The grounds raised for the assessment year 2011-12 are as under :- 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law ld. CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The action of ld.CIT (A) is illegal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paras 4 to 10 are as under :- 4. It was argued by the ld. AR of the assessee that the office of DRM was not aware whether any order can be passed against it and whether such order is appealable and it came to know that such orders are appealable only when the department pressed for the payment of outstanding demand. The ld AR has invited our attention to the chronological dates of communication with the department with regard to short deduction of tax. The ld AR of the assessee has also invited our attention to the internal communication of the assessee to the senior employees for submitting PAN details, internal circulation of direction by assessee with respect to deduction of tax at source, with respect to furnishing information in order to avoid penal provisions. As per the ld AR, the assessee has tried it best to get the required details so that wrongful demand raised by the department can be cancelled. 5. In support of his request for condonation of delay, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: (i) Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. (1979) 118 ITR 326 (SC) (ii) Collector, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccasioned by such cause should appeal to reasons so as to get judicial approval. In short, in matters of delay it is neither practicable nor desirable to explain minute-to-minute/hour-to-hour delay, but delay has to be explained. 8. Reliance was also placed on the following judicial pronouncements by the ld CITDR: (i) In the case of K.G.N.M.M.W. Educational Research Analysis Society Vs ITO [2015] 54 taxmann.com 329 (Jaipur - Trib.), it has been held by the Hon'ble Jaipur Tribunal that: In our considered view that the condonation petitions filed by the assessee and material available on the record, fail to invoke any confidence, fail to explain reasonable and sufficient cause for condonation of long delay of 347 days in filing these appeals . The assessee has to come clean with all the relevant facts, which happened in the period of one year. The assessee has to explain all the events and be specific in the dates. The depositions made in the C.A. affidavit remain uncorroborated and there is no affidavit from the said Shri Malik Parvej in support of the affidavit of C.A.. Thus, the vague affidavit given by the C.A. remains uncorrobo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bonafide mistake. Thus the assessee should be well aware of the statutory provisions and the period of limitation and should pursue its remedies diligently. It cannot expect their appeals be entertained because they are after all the assessee, notwithstanding the fact that delay is not sufficiently explained. Hence, the delay is not condoned and the appeals are unadmitted. (iii) It may be mentioned that the Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad vide its order dated 09.09.2016 in the case of MiddiNarsaiah vs. DCIT [2016] 48 CCH 54 (Hyd. Trib.) has considered a number of judicial pronouncements while rejecting the application for condonation of delay and held as under: We are of the view that the reasons mentioned in the petition for condonation are not convincing as the reasons mentioned for delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT are that the assessee's attention was diverted due to criminal cases and pre-occupation in the business activities. The criminal proceedings were over by 06/03/2013 but the delay beyond this day is pure negligence on the part of the assessee, the delay of which cannot be condoned as per the reasons mentioned in the petition. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under: The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting s. 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits . The expression sufficient cause employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even- handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the State is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact, experience shows that on account of an impersonal machinery (no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the inherent bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file- pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event, the Sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
