9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1090X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that initially the appeal was fixed for hearing and was adjourned from time to time on various occasions, but none attended on behalf of the assessee. As noticed that throughout the assessee remained non-cooperative despite availing several opportunities, therefore CIT(A) passed the impugned order, thereby taking into consideration, the statement of facts and the material placed on record. It was the bounded duty of the parties i.e. assessee as well as the Department to appear before the Ld. CIT(A). Since, this was the assessee s appeal, therefore it was all the more important for the assessee to appear before Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee had not acted with due diligence - aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and remand the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egards the sufficiency of cause for filing the appeals belatedly, it is settled principles of law that the Courts have to take liberal approach while interpreting the expression 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay. In case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle that the power to condone the delay provided under the statute is to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing of the matter on merits, therefore, while considering the matters for condonation of delay, the law must be applied in a meaningful manner which subserves ends of justice and technical considerations should not come on the way of cause of substantial justic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1973) 90 ITR 271 had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 8. Now before us, although, the assessee had tried to support ground raised by it by relying upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Jaipur Benches in the case of M/s Zeen-Zar Charitable Foundation Trust Hospital and Research Centre Vs ITO (Exemption) in ITA No. 337/JP/2018 dated 10/07/2018 as well as by relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-III Vs Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation, Poona (2017) (12) TMI 1067 (SC). 9. On the contrary, the ld DR has refuted the claim of assessee by relying upon the following decisions: (i) M/s Lissi Medical Institutions Vs CIT, Kochi 24 taxmann.com 9 (Ker). (ii) J.K. Synthetics Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etween the parties should be decided on merits after providing due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the ld. CIT(A) in deciding the appeal on merits and without any sufficient reason, not to take further adjournments. If the assessee takes adjournment without any sufficient and plausible reason, then the ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to pass order in accordance with material available on record. 12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
