9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of sincerity, bona fide and reasonableness.(See Sankaran Pillai v. V.P. Venuguduswami [ 1999 (7) TMI 717 - SUPREME COURT] ) Appellant has explained that on account of wrong advise of his counsel to reapply for registration, he had firstly preferred application afresh u/s 12A of the IT Act for registration and thereafter, due to delay in deciding the second application for registration and realising the mistake, he preferred appeal with a delay of 55 days, that is how the delay in filing the appeal has taken place. The cause shown for delay in filing the application supported by affidavit remains uncontroverted and it would constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 253 (5) of the IT Act. The rejection of application for condonation of delay has serious civil consequences upon the status of the Society, as by rejection of the application of the appellant Society, the Society would not be able to claim tax exemption under the provisions contained in Sections 11 12 of the IT Act, and that too in absence of counter-affidavit filed by the Revenue opposing the application for condonation of delay supported by affidavit. ITAT ought to have condoned the delay in preferring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of long pendency of the same, the appellant decided to file statutory appeal under Section 253 of the IT Act and by that time, the appeal has become barred by 55 days of its limitation. By virtue of the provision contained in sub-section (5) of Section 253 of the IT Act, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has power to admit an appeal or permit the filing of a memorandum of cross-objections after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in sub-section (3) or subsection (4), if it is satisfied that sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the period of limitation is shown. The appellant though filed application for condonation of delay along with the affidavit showing sufficient cause as on account of wrong advise of the counsel, he firstly filed fresh application for registration under Section 12A of the IT Act, but ultimately, realising the mistake, he filed appeal under Section 253 (1) of the IT Act, which was barred by limitation. Though it is admitted position on record that the Revenue did not file any reply to the application for condonation of delay controverting the facts alleged and cause shown for delay in filing appeal in the application, yet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 19-2-2024 which was communicated to the appellant on 2-3-2024 by the competent authority against which the appellant preferred appeal before the ITAT on 25-6-2024 along with an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit and the cause shown in the application for delay in filing the appeal is that instead of questioning the order dated 19-2-2024, the appellant Society reapplied for registration under Section 12A of the IT Act on 5-3-2024 and ultimately, realising its mistake of not filing appeal under Section 253 (1) of the IT Act, the appellant Society filed appeal on 25-6-2024. Though the Revenue was noticed and appeared in the appeal, but the Revenue did not chose to file reply to the application for condonation of delay and also did not file any affidavit controverting the reasons assigned in the affidavit in which it has clearly been mentioned that on receipt of rejection order of the application under Section 12A of the IT Act, instead of filing appeal, the appellant Society chose to reapply for registration under Section 12A. In that view of the matter, since there was uncontroverted affidavit before the ITAT showing cause that the appellant was pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the expiry of the relevant period referred to in sub-section (3) or sub-section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within sixty days of the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the assessee or to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be. 11. The expression sufficient cause employed in sub-section (5) of Section 253 of the IT Act must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay. 12. The expression sufficient cause implies the presence of legal and adequate reasons. The sufficient cause should be such as it would persuade the court, in exercise of its judicial discretion, to treat the delay as an excusable one. The party should show that besides acting bona fide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ends of justice that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that: 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done bec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to advance substantial justice. The time-limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. 11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that partie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Academy and others (2013) 12 SCC 649 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down the guidelines summarising the obligation of the court while dealing with application for condonation of delay and approach to be adopted while considering grounds for condonation, which are as under: - 21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: 21.1. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justiceoriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. 21.2. (ii) The terms sufficient cause should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining factsituation. 21.3. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. 21.4. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. 21.5. (v) Lack of bona fides imputa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of individual philosophy which is basically subjective. 22.3. (c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto. 22.4. (d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters. 21. Thereafter, in the matter of Manoharan v. Sivarajan and others (2014) 4 SCC 163, the Supreme Court followed the principle of law laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag (supra). 22. A conspectus of the aforesaid judgments noticed herein-above (supra) would show that their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly indicated that a liberal approach in considering the application for condonation of delay construing sufficient cause has to be adopted and appeal has to be decided on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. Sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 253(5) of the IT Act has to be construed liberally so as to advance su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
