“When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred” ITAT quotes Apex Court observation while condoning delay of seven days in filing appeal before CIT(A).
ITA No. 435,436,437 & 438/JP/2014
Assessment Years : 2006-07 to 2009-10
M/s. GVK Jaipur Expressway (P) Ltd vs. ACIT (TDS)
Date of Judgment/Order: 31/03/2016
Brief Facts of the Case:
The appeals of the assessee were dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the appeal was filed late by 7 days.
Contention of the Assessee:
The assessee contended that the delay in filing of appeals was caused primarily due to the mistake of Courier Agency namely, M/s. Blue Dart Courer Services and that the assessee had always acted in a bonafide manner and depended on the experts to attend the legal formalities. It was prayed that the delay of 7 days in filing the appeal be condoned and the appeals be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for decision afresh on merits of the case by providing reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Excerpts from ITAT Judgment:
It appears that such delay of small 07 days may be condoned in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 wherein the Hon’ble Court has observed as under:-
‘’The Legislature has conferred power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits. The expression ” sufficient cause ” in section 5 is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice–that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. A justifiably liberal approach has to be adopted on principle.
“Every day’s delay must be explained” does not imply a pedantic approach. The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner.
The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an evenhanded manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the State is the applicant praying for condonation of delay.
“When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.”
Thus, in view of the deliberations of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector , Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others (supra), the delay is condoned and the appeals of the assessee are restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide them afresh on merit by providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.----------- Similar Posts: -----------