9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the delay in filing of appeal, hence, we condone the delay in filing of appeal and remit back the appeal to CIT(A) to be decide on merits. 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 [ 1998 (9) TMI 602 - SUPREME COURT] has observed that the length of the delay is immaterial. The acceptability of the explanation is the only criteria for condoning the delay. In a given case and, delay of the shortest period of time may be uncondonable due to unacceptable explanation, whereas in certain other cases, delay of a long period can be condoned, if the explanation is satisfactory. In every case of delay, there might be some omissions of negligence on the part of the assessee Maxtor mind such omissions/negligence has to be weighed in the light of exist circumstances of each case. It would the negligence of commission is a byproduct of a deliberate attempt with mala-fide intention for delay the process of the litigation which could give some benefit to the litigant, then probably process of litigation which would view some benefit with the litigant then probably that delay woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant has not filed any evidence when the order under section 154 of the Act was received. When the appellant initiated the processes of getting approval of competent authority and also when competent authority conveyed the approval and in turn received by the appellant. In such a situation, the veracity of the submissions of the assessee`s claim was remained as unsubstantiated. Further the assessee has not filed hard copy of the order under section 154 of the Act. The delay has been admitted by the assessee himself by filing of appeal. As there is no corroborating evidences with submissions of the appellant regarding cause of delay. Therefore, Ld. CIT (A) held that there was no genuine cause for delay hence, delay was not condoned and the appeal of the appellant was treated as nonest in the eyes of law. 6. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the notice the assessee has received a demand notice offer demand of ₹ 1000 under section 234E for late filing of TDS return for the assessment year 20131-14. However, the assessee is not in Stay Petition No. of notice for said matter, therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 of West Bengal vs. Administrator, Howrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749 , the Hon`ble Supreme Court, while considering the scope of the expression of sufficient cause for condonation of delay, has held that the said expression should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide is imputable to the party. In the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy AIR (1998) 7 SC 124, (SC) there was a delay of 883 days in filing of application in setting aside the ex-parte decree for which application for condonation of delay was filed. The trial Court having found that sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay condoned the delay. The Hon`ble Supreme Court while restoring the order of the trial Court has of observed that condonation of delay is matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of Limitation Act says that discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within reasonable limit. Length of delay is no matter; acceptability of the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, 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 serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal. The fact that it was the State which was seeking condonation and not a private party was altogether irrelevant. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee, 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 business. he branches are not having powers to take decision related to income-tax proceedings and other taxation matters. The bank has to follow up the proper channel of approval i.e. the branch has to send approval letters to Regional Banking Office located in Navsari city. The Regional Banking Office has to take approval from Local Head Office, which is located at Ahmedabad who has to decide the steps to be taken in the important matters. Further, the Ahmedabad Local Head Office has to follow the proper cycle of appointment of the Legal Advisor. As the assessee is Public Sector Bank and has to go with explained proper channel of approval for filing of appeal, it has consumed the much time. Further, the assessee is a Public Sector Bank and frequency of the transfer/promotion of the approving authority is high which has also delayed the approval of filing of appeal. Thus, the delay beyond 30 days was due to the approval procedure in the Nationalised Bank. However, the assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings. 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 delay. In a given case and, delay of the shortest period of time may be uncondonable due to unacceptable explanation, whereas in certain other cases, delay of a long period can be condoned, if the explanation is satisfactory. In every case of delay, there might be some omissions of negligence on the part of the assessee Maxtor mind such omissions/negligence has to be weighed in the light of exist circumstances of each case. It would the negligence of commission is a byproduct of a deliberate attempt with mala-fide intention for delay the process of the litigation which could give some benefit to the litigant, then probably process of litigation which would view some benefit with the litigant then probably that delay would not deserved to be condoned. However, if no mala-fide can be attributed to the delay, that delay will be condonable. Therefore, on the facts of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has been able to demonstrate sufficient cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
