9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). This particular perusal makes it clear that till the scheme was announced same could not have been opted for. Hence till 01.09.2019, the time taken has genuinely been taken by the appellant. Catena of decisions have already held that there cannot be straight jacket formula to define the word sufficient cause or which can be applied to all cases without reference to the peculiar facts and facts and circumstances of a given case. Further, a liberal interpretation of the provisions has already been appreciated to be taken while deciding the case to condone delay for a sufficient cause. In the present matter since there is no substantial delay nor it was beyond such period as was not condonable by Commissioner (Appeals). Also department has brought nothing on record to falsify the submissions of the appellant as far as the sufficient cause shown is concerned. No deliberate delay nor any malafide intent is apparent on part of the appellant - Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to observe proviso to section 85 (3) A of the Finance Act, 1994. Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to decide the matter on merits after condoning the delay of 28 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been filed within a period of 2 months /60 days as has been stipulated statutorily in terms of section 85 (3)A of the Finance Act. Apparently and admittedly, it has been filed within a period of 90 days i.e. within the permissible time limit in terms of proviso to above provisions. The only adjudication accordingly is as to: Whether the reason quoted for delay in filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of the said proviso is the sufficient reason or not. 7. To appreciate I observe that learned Counsel has mentioned that the delay is caused purely due to time taken for opting to Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, a beneficial scheme to the assessee. Admittedly, the scheme though was announced on 05.07.2019 but came into effect from 01.09.2019. Perusal of section 123 for the said scheme under Finance Act shows that since the impugned order in original was announced just two days prior the locking date of the scheme i.e. 30.06.2018, hence to avail the benefit of said scheme, appellant should fall under said clause (e) of section 123 of the Finance Act. The appellant otherwise could not fall under any of the categories in clause (a) to (d) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10. Catena of decisions have already held that there cannot be straight jacket formula to define the word sufficient cause or which can be applied to all cases without reference to the peculiar facts and facts and circumstances of a given case. Further, a liberal interpretation of the provisions has already been appreciated to be taken while deciding the case to condone delay for a sufficient cause. I rely upon the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of 1. Perunion Bhagvathy Devaswom vs Bhargav Amma [2008 (3) Apex Court Judgements 557 (SC) 2008 (4) Civil Court Case 503 (SC) : 2008 (8) SCC 321] has held as under: The words sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation should be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, and the type of case. The words sufficient cause in section 5 of Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bonafides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant. 4.2) Rule 4 of Order 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder 22 provides that whenever a pleader appearing for a party to the suit comes to know of the death of that party, he shall inform the court about it, and the court shall thereupon give notice of such death to the other party. 2. Ram Sumiran vs DDC [1985 (1) SCC431], Mithailal Dalsangar Singh vs Annabai Devram Kini [2003 (10) SCC 691, Ganeshprasad Badrinararyan Lahoti vs. Sanjeevprasad Jamnaprasad Chourasiya [2004 (4) Civil Court Cases 410 (SC); 2004(2) Apex Court Judgements [281 (SC) : 2004 (7) SCC 482 contented that the Court should adopt a very liberal approach and the delay should be condoned on the mere asking by the applicant. 3. Ramlal Ors. Vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd. vs. AIR 1962 SC 361 , it was held as under: In construing Section 5 t is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree-holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties. In other words, when the period of limitation prescribed has expired the decree-holder has obtained a benefit under the law of limitation to treat the decree as be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal and applications for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal after rectification of defects. (v) Want of diligence or inaction can be attributed to an appellant only when something required to be done by him, is not done. When nothing is required to be done, courts do not expect the appellant to be diligent. Where an appeal is admitted by the High Court and is not expected to be listed for final hearing for a few years, an appellant is not expected to visit the court or his lawyer every few weeks to ascertain the position nor keep checking whether the contesting respondent is alive. He merely awaits the call or information from his counsel about the lilsting of the appeal. 11. It has already been held vide several decisions for disposal on merits has always to be preferred without adopting the hyper technical approach of the provision. Though principles of limitation have to be strictly observed but in a case where their appears that there is no deliberate delay on the part of the appellant, nor there is inaction apparent on his part, disposal of lis on merits has always to be preferred. 12. In the present matter since there is no substantial delay nor it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
