9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the First Appellate Authority and before us is in affirmity, in favour of the assessee without finding any deliberate delay or gross negligence on the part of him and therefore infact relying upon the judgment and the observations made by the Hon ble Supreme Court in its proper perspective declined to accept the reason given by the First Appellate Authority in rejecting the explanation rendered by the assessee in preferring the appeal before it. In fact, the explanation was not taken into consideration by the First Appellate Authority in its proper perspective and/or judiciously. We, therefore, condoning such delay in preferring the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), remit the issue to the file of CIT (A) to adjudicate the issue afresh upon giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the relevant evidence on record or which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter. The Ld.CIT (A) is directed to pass order strictly in accordance with law. Appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. - Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member And Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Vignesh, CA. For t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal. The assessee took some time to collect details of all the tax paid from Norway and other relevant informations in order to prefer an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. It is relevant to mention that the assessee received the intimation on 23.03.2021 and the appeal was preferred before the Ld. CIT (A) on 02.06.2022. After availing the gross period for filing the appeal in terms of the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment, in view of covid pandemic there was actual delay found to be 335 days in preferring the appeal. The explanation rendered by the assessee in support of the condonation of the delay was, however, rejected by the Ld.CIT (A) with the following observations. 2. Decision: The reply of the appellant is considered. It is seen that the reason supplied by the appellant for filing the appeal beyond the limitation date has not been backed by any documentary evidence. The appellant has stated that he was under impression that the said intimation was a mere notice which did not require any action from his end. The said contention lacks merit as the appellant is well qualified, employed in a foreign company/MNC and regular filer of return of income. Hence, he is requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MST Katiji and held that that it must be satisfied that the delay was not deliberate and wilful and in the absence of such circumstances, discretionary jurisdiction of the Court cannot be exercised in favour of the petitioners. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Majji Sinnemma V. Reddy Sridevi 2021 SSC online SC 1260 dated 16/12/2021 has held as under: Even though limitation may harshly affect rights of a party, but it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by the statue. The expression Sufficient Cause cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence in action or lack of bonafides is attributed to the party. If the court starts condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions, then that would amount to violation of statutory principle and showing utter disregard to logistics. In the present case, the appellant has not adduced any reasonable cause which prevented it from filing the appeal for 335 days. Unless and until it demonstrated that there was sufficient cause that prevented the appellant from exercising its legal remedy of filing appeal within that prescribed period of 30 days ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considering the situation emancing from covid 19 which was still persistent during the period when the assessee was required to get the details from Norway. Thus no negligence on the part of the assessee is found in preferring the appeal before the First Appellate Authority. 10. We note that such facts require consideration liberally with the pragmatic view to be taken by the Court or any other statutory body. In fact we find sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee in explaining such delay. We note that the terms sufficient cause should be understood in their proper perspective, philosophy and purpose record being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact situation. No gross negligence on the part of the assessee is found in the case in hand. Apart from that we have also considered the prejudicial theory. The appellant in this case would be seriously prejudiced in the event the appeal is not admitted and additions remains unadjudciated. 10.1 We have further considered the judgment relied upon by the Ld. DR wherein in paragraph 7.4, the Hon ble Supreme Court categorically stated as follows: 7.4 I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
