9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom orders passed by different income-tax authorities? No supporting evidence in the form of confirmation letter or affidavit of Shri Varun Agarwal has been enclosed to substantiate its claim. It is clear that assessee waited for the fresh order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act and when it found that no relief was granted on the issue of unsecured loans, he has filed appeal before both Ld. CIT(A) and the ITAT. The reasons given by the assessee 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 li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest of the revenue. 3. It is therefore prayed that above order passed by Pr. CIT u/s 263 may please be quashed or modified as your honours deem it proper. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before in the course of hearing of the appeal. 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 357 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before this Tribunal. In the affidavit, it is stated that the assessee has received the order passed u/s 263 on 27.03.2022. It was required to file appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT within the 60 days i.e. on or before 26.05.2022. The appeal was however filed belatedly i.e. on 18.05.2023. It is stated that the Chartered Account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) 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 income-tax authorities? No supporti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. The Hon'ble Court summarized the law on the subject issue by stating that where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation of time, the applicant has to explain as to what was the sufficient cause which means an adequate and enough reason, which prevented him to approach the Court within the limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. 9. We find that in a recent decision pronounced on 28.04.2024, in the case of Pathapat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Ld. AR, and held that the phrases liberal approach , justice-oriented approach and cause of advancement of substantial justice cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation. For ready reference of equality, the same is reproduced hereunder: 16. .In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors.2, this Court in advocating the liberal approach in condoning the delay for sufficient cause held that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late; it is not necessary to explain every day s delay in filing the appeal; and since sometimes refusal to condone delay may result in throwing out a meritorious matter, it is necessary in the interest of justice that cause of substantial justice should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
