9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal for a decision on merits, in accordance with the law. - Honourable Mr.Justice R.Mahadevan And Honourable Mr.Justice Mohammed Shaffiq For the Appellant : Mr.A.S.Sriraman for Mr.S.Sridhar For the Respondent : Mrs.V.Pushpa Senior Standing Counsel for Ms.Anu Ganesan Junior Standing Counsel JUDGMENT R.MAHADEVAN, J. Challenging the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench, Chennai, in ITA No.911/CHNY/2018 for the Assessment Year 2010-2011, the appellant / assessee has filed the present appeal. 2. According to the appellant, for the assessment year 2010-11, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ) on 26.03.2013 in determining the taxable total income at Rs. 1,23,24,320/- as against the reported income mentioned in the return of income filed on 11.01.2011 at Rs. 99,84,330/-. In para 3 of the assessment order, the respondent made an addition of Rs. 23,40,000/- representing fresh unsecured loans in terms of section 68 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory explanation offered by the appellant. Challenging the said assessment order, the appellant prefer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng this appeal by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal. 4. On the other hand, the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellant has not furnished the necessary documents in support of their claim before the authority concerned and hence, the assessing officer has correctly assessed the income and passed the assessment order, which was also confirmed by the appellate authority. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant approached the Tribunal with a delay of 380 days, which is beyond the period of limitation and hence, the Tribunal rightly rejected the condonation of delay petition and the further appeal filed by the appellant, by the order impugned herein. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materials placed before this court. 6. The dispute raised by the appellant is with respect to addition of Rs. 23,40,000/- towards unsecured loans in terms of section 68 of the Act. It is an admitted fact that the appellant has not furnished the required documentary evidence to substantiate their claim before the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority. The appellant pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. The words 'sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. (ii)In Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy [2013 (12) SCC 649], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has culled out the principles applicable to an application for condonation of delay and the same are profitably reproduced hereunder: i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non- pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. ii) The terms sufficient cause should be understood in their proper spiri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ragraph Nos.14 and 17 of the judgment of this court in Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Vs. Appellate Authority , [ (1990) 1 LLN 457], which read as under : 14. We are unable to agree with the reasoning of the learned Judge that no litigant ordinarily stands to benefit by instituting a proceeding beyond time. It is common knowledge that by delaying a matter, evidence relating to the matter in dispute may disappear and very often the party concerned may think that preserving the relevant records would be unnecessary in view of the fact that there was no further proceeding. If a litigant chooses to approach the Court long after the time prescribed under the relevant provisions of the law, he cannot say that no prejudice would be caused to the other side by the delay being condoned. The other side would have in all probability destroyed the records thinking that the records would not be relevant as there was no further proceeding in the matter. Hence to view a matter of condonation of delay with a presupposition that no prejudice will be caused by the condonation of delay to the respondent in that application will be fallacious. In our view, each case has to be decided on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
