| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
June 6, 2013 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
Delay in filing appeal due to CA’s fault is bona fide & must be condoned
The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal which was delayed by 496 days. In the application for condonation of delay, the assessee claimed that he had handed over the papers to his Chartered Accountant and that the latter had mixed up the papers with other papers in his office which led to the delay. The department opposed the application on the ground that there was “gross negligence” on the part of the assessee and that sufficient cause for the delay was not explained. HELD by the Tribunal:
The facts do not suggest that the assessee has acted in a malafide manner or that the reasons explained are only a device to cover an ulterior purpose. It is a settled proposition of law that Courts should take a lenient view on the matter of condonation of delay provided the explanation and the reason for delay is bonafide and not merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose or an attempt to save limitation in an underhand way. The Court should be liberal in construing sufficient cause and should lean in favour of such party. Whenever substantial Justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, cause of substantial Justice has to be preferred. On facts, the reasons explained by the assessee show that due to bonafide mistake and inadvertence, the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the delay of 496 days has to be condoned (Mst. Katiji 167 ITR 471(SC) referred).
Related Posts:
- Ratanlal C. Bafna vs. JCIT (ITAT Pune) Considering the totality of the facts involved in the present case and in view of the decisions cited hereinabove, we are of the view that in the present case since the appeal against the order of the Tribunal has already been admitted and a substantial question of law has been…
- V.R.Enterprises vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee was in possession of primary purchase documents and the payments to the suppliers was through banking channels. The assessee had established corresponding sales before Ld. AO. The books of accounts were audited wherein quantitative details of stock was provided. We are of the considered opinion that there could…
- Kaybee Pvt Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Section 92A(2) governs the operation of Section 92A(1) by controlling the definition of participation in management or capital or control by one of the enterprise in the other enterprise. If a form of participation in management, capital or control is not recognized by Section 92A(2), even if it ends up…
- Unnikrishnan V S vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We find that so far as the ESOP benefit is concerned, while the income has arisen to the assessee in the current year, admittedly the related rights were granted to the assessee in 2007 and in consideration for the services which were rendered by the assessee prior to the rights…
- Karmic Labs Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Section 56 allows the assessees to adopt one of the methods of their choice. But, the AO held that the assessee should have adopted only one method for determining the value of the shares. In our opinion, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the AO to insist upon a particular…
- Anandkumar Jain vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) It is also well – settled that a judicial decision acts retrospectively. According to Blackstonian theory, it is not the function of the Court to pronounce a ‘new rule’ but to maintain and expound the ‘old one’. In other words, the Judges do not make law; they only discover or…
The case laws needs to be read under the relevant statutes for condonation of delay as law of limitation’s applicability is sometimes excluded and Mst.Katji 167 ITR 471 SC may not be good law under S.35 of C. E. Act,1944. There are citations to that effect of Singh Bros and others of HC & SC.