9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t filed by the then representative, we are of the opinion that due to the circumstances that existed, the lapse that occurred on behalf of the representative cannot be attributed to the assessee for which assessee could be punished. Whether delay was excessive or inordinate? - There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not able to file the appeals within the period of limitation. The cause for the delay therefore deserves to be considered, when there exist a reasonable cause, and therefore the period of delay may not be relevant factor. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. [ 1984 (4) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Hon ble Madras High Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. As compared to 21 years, delay of about 1000 to 2000 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or excessive. As decided in Mrs. Sandhya Rani Sarkar vs. Smt. Sudha Rani Debi [ 1978 (2) TMI 210 - SUPREME COURT] clarified the distinction between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A). He placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji reported in [1987] 167 ITR 471(SC) and prayed for consideration of the merits by condoning the delay. The Ld.DR though vehemently opposed the condonation of delay before Ld.CIT(A), submitted that assessee continues to be a nonperforming asset and no purpose will be served as assessee is not in a position to establish its claim. 5. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. We note that substantial justice must be pitted before technicalities. 6. The Ld.AR has submitted that assessee is in the process of making the payments to the Union Bank of India as per the approval of OTS dated 30.03.2024 placed on record in Appeal Memo. It is submitted that uptil now the assessee has made payment of Rs. 2 crores upfront, which has been recorded in the approval of OTS dated 30.03.2024. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is making arrangements for making balance payment of Rs. 17.5 crores approx. in order to get the assets released from the custody of Union Bank of India. He submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay . 10. The next question may arise whether delay was excessive or inordinate. There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not able to file the appeals within the period of limitation. The cause for the delay therefore deserves to be considered, when there exist a reasonable cause, and therefore the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In support, we rely on the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Hon ble Madras High Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. As compared to 21 years, delay of about 1000 to 2000 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or excessive. 11. Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust reported in 280 ITR 357 held that, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and the Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 'explanation' and an 'excuse', emphasizing that, mere excuses wouldn't suffice; a satisfactory and acceptable explanation was required. The Court added, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. We therefore feel that we feel that the reasons assigned by the assessee and the then representative for condonation of delay on account of the assessee and inability to present the appeals within time, deserves consideration. We are therefore of the view that, there is a reasonable cause in filing the appeals belatedly before ld. CIT(A), as delay was neither willful nor wanton but was due to the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. 14. It is noted that there is no malafide intention on behalf of assessee in not filing the appeals before Ld.CIT(A) within time. In our opinion there is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay as observed by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 in support of his contentions, wherein, Hon ble Court observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
