9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but seek their remedy promptly. It held that there is no presumption that delay in approaching the Court is always deliberate, and the words sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. Every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned, but that alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him; and if the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. It also observed that if the delay is deliberate, then the Court should not accept the explanation. It held that while condoning the del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to time and a detailed reply was also filed on 05-01-2013. 6. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Hyderabad, the then Assessing Officer, vide his order dt.30-03-2013, completed the assessment. The income returned was the income assessed. No separate additions were made. 7. Later, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad issued a show cause notice proposing to revise the assessment in terms of Section 163 of the Act. 8. The Revisional Authority, vide his show cause notice, proposed to make an addition of ₹ 1,04,66,134/-, being the total value of gold and silver jewellery, found during the course of search and seizure proceedings, as unexplained investment in the hands of the Assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he family members of the assessee. 11. The Assessing Officer, vide his order dt.31-12-2015, completed the assessment once again, under Section 143(3) r/w 263 of the Act, in tune with the order of the Revisional Authority . 12. Questioning the order of the Revisional Authority dt.10-03-2015, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal by the assessee/appellant on 29-01-2016. 13. The assessee contends that he approached his counsel only after the receipt of the consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer on 31-12-2015; that he was under a bona fide but erroneous view that an appeal to be filed challenging only the consequential order and not to the Revisional Order; and that only after he approached his counsel, it was realize ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Tribunal, and contended that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. 20. We have noted the contentions of both sides. 21. The reasoning assigned by the assessee for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation to the Tribunal was that he was under the mistaken impression that only the consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer on 31-12-2015 was required to be challenged and not the order dt.10-03-2015 of the Revisional Authority, and that only after he consulted the Advocate, he realized the mistake and then challenged the order of the Revisional Authority. 22. The Tribunal took the view that the appellant ought to have explained why after receiving the order fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in N.Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice; and that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties, but they are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. It held that there is no presumption that delay in approaching the Court is always deliberate, and the words sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It held that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned, but that alone is not enoug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
