9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner has been a victim of misrepresentation of facts by his own advocate and was kept under the impression that the appeal is pending before the High Court whereas no appeal was in fact filed by the advocate. It cannot be said that the appellant has not been vigilant in prosecuting the appeal. The cause shown by the petitioner is sufficient to justify condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. Ex-parte order passed by CIT u/s 263 is an ex parte order and non-speaking order - violation of principle of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The above facts, we note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the PCIT. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. PCIT and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. PCIT to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consultation in the month of February, 2022. Hence, CA Rasesh Shah advised him to take chance by filing the belated appeal against the order passed u/s 263. (5) The case of the assessee is meritorious one as at the time of passing the original assessment order, proper inquiry was made by the assessing officer in respect of the cash deposit made in the bank account. (6) Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant prayed to his Honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal: (a) To condone the delay of 1740 days in filing the Appeal No.44/SRT/2022 and to extent the time for filing the same inclusive and upto the date of filing the appeal; (b) To grant such other and further relief as deemed fit by Honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. (7) The above stated facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and I know that to make a false affidavit is a criminal offence." 3. The ld Counsel also stated that since the assessee has not filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), against the appeal effect order passed by the assessing officer under section 263 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 29.12.2017, therefore, delay may be cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings. The findings of the Hon`ble Supreme Court are as follows: "Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions: The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall 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. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he income tax practitioner (Shri Sanjay Gandhi) of assessee, did not advise the assessee to file appeal against the order u/s 263 of the Act, under the bona fide belief that the order u/s 263, was not appealable. We note that the power to condone the delay is discretionary and the discretion must be judicially exercised. The words 'sufficient cause' should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice where no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona- fide is imputable to the applicant. Thus, mistake of the lawyer or accountant may be a good reason for condoning delay. 10. In considering the condonation petition, it is to be remembered that statutes conferring a right of appeal must be construed in furtherance of justice and the provision limiting the time for bringing an appeal must be liberally interpreted, so that the party pursuing such remedy allowed to him by the law is not 'non-suited' on mere technicalities [Chaman Lal Bros. P. Ltd. v. The Punjab State, (1961) 12 STC 643 (Punj)]. An honest mistake of calculation of period of limitation committed either by an advocate or by the party remains an honest mistake and will furnish sufficient ground for cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
