9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeals dismissed the appeal without concluding the appellate order on merits. 2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Centralized Processing Cell - TDS, Vaishali, Ghaziabad has passed the intimation under section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2013-14 dated 03.02.2018, for the assessment years 2014-15 & 2015-16 dated 30.11.2014. Only after receipt of notice dated 09.10.2018 for all the above assessment years, the intimation issued under section 200A of the Act and received by one of the employees was brought to the notice of the assessee. Thereafter, immediately after contacting the AR, the appeal papers were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the assessee. Under the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there was no willful negligence on the part of the assessee. 5. The expression 'sufficient cause' used in section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and other statutes is elastic enough to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which serve the ends of justice. No hard and fast Rule has been or can be laid down for deciding the applications for condonation of delay but over the years various Courts have advocated that a liberal approach should be adopted in such matters so that substantive rights of the parties are not defeated merely because of delay. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in reversional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on whole 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. The reason for such a different stance is thus: The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. Time limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations in not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. Rule of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. 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. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the court should not forget the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
