9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see are therefore general, self-serving and not convincing. It is settled law that condonation of delay should not be granted only on the ground that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.Condonation of delay should not be granted only on the ground that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. The reason given by the assessee in the present case is not adequate or enough and also looks bonafide on its part. It is thus crystal clear that assessee was grossly negligent, inactive and casual in filing of appeal. Such negligent, casual and lackadaisical approach to file appeal cannot constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of section 253(5) of the Act. Appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2022 before ITAT. He accordingly filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) on 28.04.2023 and also filed appeal belatedly before the Hon'ble ITAT on 18.05.2023. 4. The Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that assessee has explained that there was sufficient cause/reason in filing appeal late. Hence, the delay may be condoned in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax - Departmental Representative (Ld. CIT-DR) for the Revenue strongly opposed the request for condonation of delay. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the reasons given by the assessee would not constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 253(3) of the Act. 6. We have heard both parties on this preliminary issue of condonation of delay. We find that here was a delay of 357 days in filing appeal before the ITAT. The simple and bland statement in the affidavit that CA, Shri Varun Agarwal was not aware of the provisions of direct appeal to ITAT against the order u/s 263 of the Act is unbelievable. How would a practicing CA not know about appealable order and the proper appellate forum for filing appeal arising from orders passed by different in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to and discussed various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court namely (i) Bhag Mal (Alias) Ram Bux & Ors vs. Munshi (Dead) by LRs & Ors (2007) 11 SCC 285 (SC), (ii) Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (supra) (iii) Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (1962) 2 SCR 762, (iv) Maqbul Ahmad and Ors vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh and Ors, AIR 1935 PC 85 (v) Brijesh Kumar and Ors vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 2014 (4) SCALE 50 (vi) Lanka Venkateswarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors, (2011) 4 SCC 363 (vii) State of Jharkhand & Ors vs. Ashok Kumar Chokhani & Ors. AIR 2009 SC 1927 (viii) Basawaraj and Anr. (supra) and held as under: "7. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the legal maxim "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium" i.e. it is for the general welfare that a period of limitation be put to litigation. The object is to put an end to every legal remedy and to have a fixed period of life for every litigation as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. Even public policy requires that there should be an end to the litigation otherwise it would be a dichot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally; (iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal; (vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
