PCIT v. Dinesh Kumar Bansal (HUF) (2022) 214 DTR 11/(2023) 335 CTR 577 (Cal (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Condonation of delay – Substantial justice – Every single day’s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. [S. 254(1), Limitation Act , S. 5, Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act , 2020 , S. 3 ]

The appeals filed by the Revenue were delayed and hence application for condonation of delay was also filed. The Revenue submitted that the cases in hand expose a large financial scam which is not only confined to Kolkata but is spread over throughout the country concerning penny stock companies.  Since in most of the matters the tax effect was less than the threshold as prescribed, the Revenue initially did not file appeals before the Court. However, on account of a subsequent clarification issued by the CBDT that appeals concerning penny stock matters can be filed irrespective of the tax effect involved, the Revenue filed appeals to the Court. The object underlying such decision cannot be ignored as it is represented that investigation reveal large scale financial scam throughout the country. If such is a fact of situation then the Court cannot be put under shackles on the technical grounds. Thus, on the assessee contemplating of going under the VsV Act cannot be said to have suffered prejudiced only because the Revenue has preferred the appeal belatedly and hence the applications filed before the Court for condonation of delay were allowed and delay in filing the appeals was condoned.