9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was filed belated, but considering the decision of the apex court [ 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT] , we deem it fit the interest of justice to restore the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide on this merit of the case. Therefore, we set a side the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal of the assesses on merits. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with the ld. CIT(A) in deciding the appeal on merits and without sufficient reason, not to take further adjournments.Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA. No. 33/JP/2023 - - - Dated:- 25-4-2023 - DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM AND SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Assessee by : Shri Devang Gargieya (Adv.) Revenue by : Sh. A. S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing. 3. The fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee firm filed its return of income on 26.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 54,63,390/-. The case was selected for compulsory scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 12.08.2013 by ITO, Tonk, which was served upon the assessee on 16/08/2013. The case was transferred to the DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur vide order dated 31.10.2014 from ITO, Tonk. On change of office of incumbent, fresh notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee on 25.11.2014. 4. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that all the grounds are interconnected and related levy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is humbly submitted that due to Covid-19 there was complete lockdown in Jaipur and all the offices including the applicant s office and the consultant s office were closed. The Appellant could not file the appeal within the stipulated limitation period of sixty days due to the prevention measures implemented by the Government. GOA 2 and 3 2. That keeping in view the difficulties faced by lawyers and litigants across the country in filing appeals/applications etc. due to the lockdown, the Apex court of India passed an order dated 23.03.2020 in Suo motu Writ Appeal (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 on the issue of law of limitation by observing as follows: To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that the lawyers/ litigants do not have to co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15-3-2020 till 28-2-2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 1-3-2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 1-3-2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. The period from 15-3-2020 till 28-2-2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missed the appeal of the assessee without dealing with the merits of the case. 7. Per contra, the ld. DR representing the revenue relied upon the finding of the lower authorities and submitted that even though the appeal was filed delayed there is no petition filed by the assessee praying for condonation. This action of the assessee is not in accordance with law and thus the appeal rightly dismissed by the ld. CTI(A). 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Bench has taken into consideration the order of Hon ble Apex Court as to the condonation of delay due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic vide its decision dated 10-01-2022 in Misc. Application No. 21 of 2022, 665 of 2021 and Suo Motu Writ P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot imply a pedantic approach. The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an evenhanded manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the State is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Keeping in view the present facts and circumstances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
