9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 967X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en by the assessee are devoid of any merit and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The law requires the assessee to be vigilant and careful in prosecuting its rights under the Act - See MAJJI SANNEMMA @ SANYASIRAO VERSUS REDDY SRIDEVI ORS [ 2021 (12) TMI 1424 - SUPREME COURT] - Appeal of assessee dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de order dt.05.12.2018. Thereafter, for A.Y. 2017-18, assessee filed rectification application on 12.01.2019 seeking the same relief of set off of carry forward losses of the earlier years from A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2013-14 to 2015-16, the same was also denied by the CPC. Thereafter, the assessee had filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) after a delay of 3047 days on 29.07.2019. As the appeal of the assessee was time barred for a period of 3047 days, the ld.CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal of assessee in limine by observing as under : "4. Hearing Notices & Submissions: 4.1 A hearing notice dated 26/02/2021 issued to the appellant requiring the appellant to furnish written submissions on or before 15/03/2021, however, there was no response from appellant. Another notices dated 30/09/2021, 16/11/2021, 11/01/2022 & 03/06/2022 issued to the appellant requiring it to furnish the submissions as per annexure on or before 08/10/2021, 23/11/2021, 18/01/2022 & 13/06/2022 respectively. In compliance of notices of hearing issued, the appellant made its response on 11/10/2021, 22/11/2021 & 22/01/2022 respectively. Hence, the appeal is decided on the basis of material available on record. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h being chronic diabetic and heart patient and due to frequent visits to hospital and not on account of any lapse by the officers of assessee society. In support of his contention, ld. AR filed a paper book containing all his medical bills and health reports containing 300 pages. 7.1. Ld.AR further submitted that as the Director of the assessee has reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A), matter may kindly be remitted back to the authorities below for afresh adjudication. In support of his case, Ld. AR filed the following decisions : • Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT - 398 ITR 250 of Bombay High Court. • Royal Airways Lts Vs. Addl.CIT - 98 ITD 259 - Delhi High Court. • All India Primary Teachers Federation Vs. DIT (Exemptions), 93 TTJ 155 - Delhi High Court. • Angela J. Kazi Vs. ITO - 10 SOT 139 of Mumbai Tribunal. • Smt. Rameshwari Devi and another Vs. Sansar Chand and others - AIR 1986 Himachal Pradesh. • Nosegay Public School Management Committee Vs. CIT - 58 SOT 185 of Jodhpur Bench. • Sartorious Mechatronics India (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT of ITAT, Bangalore Bench. 8. Per contra, the ld.DR has raised obj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorized some other official of the society either president, secretary or joint secretary to file the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). In the light of above facts, the reasons submitted by the Director of the assessee company and sequence of events, we are of the considered view that the reasons given by the assessee in the condonation petition are not bona fide. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the reasons given by the assessee in the petition for condonation of delay filled before the ld.CIT(A) and he has rightly dismissed the petition filed by the assessee. 11. Be that as it may, coming back to the legal position evolved by the decision of various High Courts, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases, where it has been time and again, held that when merits and technicalities pitted against each other, then merit alone deserves to be prevailed because, if you throw out a meritorious case out of judicial scrutiny on the grounds of technicalities, then you may deprive the right of the petitioner in pursuing their case. At the same time, various Courts have held that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi and others (Civil Appeal No.7696 of 2021 dt.16.12.2021 relied upon by the ld.DR, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the condonation petition. The facts of this case are identical to the facts of the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court at Para 6.2 had reproduced the facts of the case to the following effect : "6.2 We have gone through the averments in the application for the condonation of delay. There is no sufficient explanation for the period from 15.03.2017 till the Second Appeal was preferred in the year 2021. In the application seeking condonation of delay it was stated that she is aged 45 years and was looking after the entire litigation and that she was suffering from health issues and she had fallen sick from 01.01.2017 to 15.03.2017 and she was advised to take bed rest for the said period. However, there is no explanation for the period after 15.03.2017. Thus, the period of delay from 15.03.2017 till the Second Appeal was filed in the year 2021 has not at all been explained. Therefore, the High Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously." In our view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
