9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bonafide reasons and sufficient cause for non-filling of the appeal within the time limit. The contention of the assessee is supported by the affidavit of the previous counsel and even we could not find any material contrary and/or adverse to the claim of the assessee, therefore explanation offered and cause shown qua delay of 124 days in filling of the instant appeal seems to be bonafide, reasonable, sufficient and unintentional, hence deserves to be condoned. Consequently the same stands condoned. The Appellant most of the times, did not bother itself on one or other reason(s) to appear and co-ordinate with appellate proceedings even after availing various opportunities. Although the instant appeal of the assessee is liable to be d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessee against the order dated 12-04-2018 impugned herein passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the 'Act') whereby the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee, on non-prosecution. 2. At the outset, during the course of hearing of this appeal, it was observed by the bench that there is delay of 124 days in filling of the instant appeal, which was explained by the assessee by submitting that Mr Karanbir Singh Sethi (Ld. Chartered Accountant) though prepared the appeal to be filed before ITAT, Amritsar and handed over the appeal papers to his assistant for deposit of Appeal fee and sending the same to Amritsar after getting signed from the assessee, however i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al approach is requires to be adopted on principle as ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. Further 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. The Apex Court further held that 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. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the Court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior Court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first Court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior Court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior Court to come to its own finding even untrammelled by the conclusion of the lower Court. A court knows that refusal to condone delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bout 31 years, in approaching the apex Court and held that it must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down the pleas and to shut the doors against him. If explanation does not smack mala fide or does not put forth as a dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration of such litigant. The Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan (supra), clearly held that the length of delay is immaterial, it is the acceptability of the explanation and that is the only criteria for condoning the delay. The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate disputes between the parties and to advance substantial justice. It is well settled that bonafide lis ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) fixed the case for hearing on various dates, however on most of the dates, the Assessee neither attended the appellate proceedings nor filed any adjournment application and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) while observing that the appellant/assessee is not interested in pursuing its appeal, dismissed the same. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the order impugned herein. The Appellant most of the times, did not bother itself on one or other reason(s) to appear and co-ordinate with appellate proceedings even after availing various opportunities. Although the instant appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed in order to give effect to the principle that law does not assist the person who is inactive and sleeps over his rig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
