9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between 101 days to 701 days in filing of appeal before him. The assessee has filed a chart showing delay for various quarters for filing of appeal. The main reason for delay is claimed as that the notice were received at the branch level of the bank. It was further submitted that the appellant being a public Sector bank, it has to take permission through proper channel for filing of appeals which consumes a considerable time. The delay beyond 30 days was due to the following approval procedure prevalent in bank. The appellant has neither done intentional delay if filing of appeal or gained anything for delaying the same. 5. However, Ld. CIT (A) observed that there is no doubt that there might be some internal procedure in the bank to get approval of competent authority to file appeal. Here the appellant has claimed that the delay occurred due to following prescribed procedure, but no evidence in support of the same has been filed. The appellant was required to establish that there were circumstances which were his beyond control. The appellant has not filed any evidence when the order under section 154 of the Act was received. When the appellant initiated the processes of gettin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ying the matter. Therefore, it was requested before us that the delay in filing of appeal may be condoned and appeal be entertained on merits. 7. Per contra, the ld. Sr. D.R. relied on the orders of lower authorities. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We are of the view that it is settled law that the Courts are quasi- judicial bodies and are empowered to condone the delay if the litigant satisfies the Court that there were sufficient reasons for the availing the remedy after the expiry of the limitation. Such a reasoning should be to the satisfaction of the Court. The expression sufficient cause or reason as provided in subsection (5) of section 253, subsection (3) of section 249 of the Income Tax Act 1961 is used in identical terms in the Limitation Act and the CPC. Such expression has also been used in under section 273B of the Act, 1961. The expression "'sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of Limitation Act as well as a similar other provisions and the ambit of exercise of powers thereunder have been subject matter of consideration before the Honourable Apex Court on various occasions. In the case of the State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:- "Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period." 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. 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. 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 doctrin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, set aside. Delay is condoned. And the matter is remitted to the High Court. The High Court will now dispose of the appeal on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the sides. Appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs." 9. In the light of above cited judgements, if we examined the facts of the present case, we find that the original order under section 154 read with section 200A was passed by the ACIT- CPC Ghaziabad was never received by the assessee nor the same is in possession of the assessee. The assessee has only taken the printout of demand notice for Rs. 1000 through web site of income-tax Department. The assessee being a Public Sector Bank has to obtained approval through proper channel approval of competent authority, by sending the note administrative office and who will send a note Regional Banking Office, situated at Navsari and who and who in turn has to seek approval from Local Head Office. However, this explanation as offered by the assessee, was not found acceptable by the CIT (A), in absence of evidence of such delay. We find that the explanation provided by the assessee is that all branches are given limited power related to banking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. ITO [2013] 40 taxmann.com 491 (Guj) wherein it was held that it is cardinal principle of law that normally by and large the appeals are required to be decided on the merits rather than dismissing the same on technical ground like delay etc. unless there is gross negligence on the part of the assessee and/or there was any malafide intention on the part of the assessee in not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation and/or in filing the appeals belatedly. Further the Hon`ble Jurisdictional High Court in above case (supra) has laid down the cardinal principle of law that normally by and large the appeals are required to be decided on the merits rather than dismissing the same on technical ground like delay etc., therefore, the decision relied on by the CIT (A) rather supports the cause of the assessee. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances sof the case, it is apparent that the assessee has been vigilant in its approach and has not neglected the Income tax proceedings. The Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan (supra) has observed that the length of the delay is immaterial. The acceptability of the explanation is the only criteria for condoning the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
