9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 1037X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne such normal delays and proceed to decide the matter in issue before it on merits in the interest of substantial justice. However, in the present cases, there was an inordinate delay of more than 10 years and 11 years for the impugned assessment years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, respectively, and admittedly, the assessee could not explain the day-to-day delay before the learned CIT(A). Even before the Tribunal also, the assessee had filed the appeals with a delay of 35 days and 50 days for the impugned assessment years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, respectively. Taking the spirit from the recent Judgment of Pathapati Subba Reddy (died) [2024 (5) TMI 1319 - SUPREME COURT] dismiss the appeals of the assessee as there were no 'sufficient cause' sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bbed his minor daughter's house property income of Rs. 7,37,766/- u/sec.64(1A) of the Act along with his income and filed the return for the impugned assessment year 2010-2011. The assessee, thereafter, filed rectification application u/sec.154 of the Act before the jurisdictional Assessing Officer duly enclosing the original TDS certificates of his daughter by claiming refund of Rs. 93,880/- out of the total demand raised by the CPC of Rs. 1,20,140/-, the said rectification application was rejected by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer on account of delay in filing it. For the assessment year 2011-2012 the tax demand raised by the Assessing Officer was at Rs. 60,850/- vide order dated 11.11.2011 passed u/sec.143(1) of the Act, on similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e parties and perused the material available on record. We find that there is no dispute between the parties that the assessee had filed his appeals before the learned CIT(A) with a delay of 10 years 10 months and 19 days and 11 years 03 months and 05 days for the impugned assessment years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, for which, there were no proper day-to-day explanation offered by the assessee. We note that the delays are of two kinds i.e., normal delay and inordinate delay. In case of former one, the Court's/Tribunal's always take a lenient view to condone such normal delays and proceed to decide the matter in issue before it on merits in the interest of substantial justice. However, in the present cases, there was an inordinate delay of mor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
