9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 534 days. The assessee-trusts have filed similar affidavits for condonation of delay in filing of appeals before this Tribunal. Shri Vighnahar Vidhyasagar Scholarship Trust (in ITA No.404/SRT/2024) is taken as the "lead case". In the affidavit, it has been stated that the applications of registration of assessee-trust was rejected by the Ld. CIT(E). In the Form No.36, the date of order and date of service of order was mentioned the same on the presumption that the order was sent by the Ld. CIT(E) to the registered E-mail ID of the assessee-trust on the same date. The receiver of the assessee-trust had not opened the Email ID where the order was delivered. Shri Umesh Shah, CA of the assessee-trust found from ITBA Portal that the assessment orders were passed on 5.03.2024 for assessment year 2022-23. On further checking the status of application for the registration of application of assessee-trust, it was found that the same was rejected by Ld. CIT(E). If the date of downloading the said order is considered, there is no delay in filing the present appeal. It is also stated that in the affidavit that the assessee is an old trust who was granted registration u/s 12A on 30.03.1997, hen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A portal to check the assessment order passed for AY.2022-23. It was found by him that the assessment order was passed on 05.03.2024. Thereafter, the CA also checked the status of the application for registration on the ITBA portal and found that the registration application has already been rejected by the Ld. CIT(E). Such order of rejection was downloaded by the CA on 05.03.2022 and if the date of filing is reckoned from the above date, there is no delay. It is further stated that the assessee is a very old trust and was given registration u/s 12A on 13.03.2021. It is stated that there was no malafide intention to file belatedly. It is also stated that the delay was not intentional and assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time. 6. On the other hand, learned Commissioner of Income Tax - Departmental Representative (Ld. CIT-DR) for the Revenue stated that the reasons given by the assessee would not constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 253(5) of the Act. He has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi & Ors (supra). After considering the submissions of the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sfied with the reasons of the Hon'ble High Court. It was of the opinion that it was a case of gross negligence and want of due diligent on the part of the respondent. There was no sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter relied on its own earlier decisions cited supra where the conduct of the parties in preferring appeals beyond the time prescribed has not been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In various cases, it has been observed that in absence of reasonable and satisfactory cause or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. 7. In the case of P. K. Ramachandran (supra) it was observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigor when the statue so prescribes and the court have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its decision in case of Basawaraj (supra) wherein it was observed and held by the Court that discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ii) P. K. Ramachandran vs State of Kerala & Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 556, (iii) Pundik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Engineers, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and (iv) Basawaraj and Anr vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, (v) Pathapati Subba Reddy (dies) By L. Rs. & Ors. Vs The Special Deputy Collector (LA), SLP(C) No.31248 of 2018 (SC), dated 08.04.2024, it was held 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. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj (supra), held that it is a settled legal position that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. If some similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. If an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 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 be allowed to prevail upon technical considerations and if the delay is not deliberate, it ought to be condoned. Notwithstanding the above, howsoever, liberal approach is adopted in condoning the delay, existence of 'sufficient cause' for not filing the appeal in time, is a condition precedent for exercising the discretionary power to condone the delay. The phrases 'liberal approach', 'justice- (1987) 2 SCC 107 = AIR 1987 SC 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase are similar. The assessee has filed the appeal after a delayed of 506 days. The reason given is that while checking status of the assessment order, the CA also checked the status of application for registration and found that the application has been rejected. It means that the assessee was primarily concerned about the fate of assessment order. The CA also checked the status of the application filed for registration while checking the assessment order. It is thus crystal clear that after filing the application, it has remained inactive and was negligent. There was no due diligence on the part of the assessee. This fact shows the lackadaisical attitude of the assessee towards the registration of the trust and subsequent follow up action indulging filing of appeal. Such casual and lackadaisical approach towards the order of rejection of registration cannot constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 253(5) of the Act. In view of the above facts and respectfully following the authoritative precedents cited supra, we refuse to condone the delay, requested by the assessee. 19. Since, delay has not been condoned; it becomes academic in nature to discuss the merit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
