9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the litigation and not justifying anything. After perusing the whole record, which has been brought to us, we are of the view that it is not a case where delay even if of any number of days deserves to be condoned. Therefore, we reject this application of the assessee and dismiss the appeal being time-barred. - I.T.A. No. 334/KOL/2022 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2023 - Shri Rajpal Yadav , Vice - President ( KZ ) And Dr. Manish Borad , Accountant Member None, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Subhrajyoyi Bhattacharjee, CIT, D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue ORDER Per Rajpal Yadav , Vice - President ( KZ ) : - The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. 1st Appellate Authority has made discussion about each share applicant and thereafter concurred with the ld. Assessing Officer. 5. On account of above absence of assessee, we heard the appeal ex-parte with the assistance of ld. D.R. 6. We find that the impugned order was passed on 30.11.2017. The assessee has alleged that it came to know about the impugned order on 15.03.2020. Therefore, the assessee is counting the period of limitation from this date, whereas the assessee is required to explain the delay from the date of its passing. The appeal is hopelessly time-barred and in order to explain the delay, an affidavit is being filed from Shri Sashi Kant Agarwal. Such affidavit reads as under:- 7. With the assistance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ust be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. 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. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
