DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, JAIPUR V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

ITA 1464/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4696 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B K GUPTA DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV SOGANI
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay; Bonafide mistake; TDS
• Section: 201(1)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES B, JAIPUR JH JES'K LH 'KEKZ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO , JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 1464/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, DRM OFFICE, NEAR JAIPUR JUNCTION, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. A.C.I.T.(TDS), JAIPUR. TAN NO. JPRD02777F VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 1467/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, DRM OFFICE, NEAR JAIPUR JUNCTION, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. A.C.I.T.(TDS), JAIPUR. TAN NO. JPRD02777F VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJIV SOGANI (CA) & SHRI ROHAN SOGANI (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI B.K. GUPTA (CIT-DR) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 28/01/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11/02/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD.CIT(A)-3, JAIPUR DATED 23/10/2018 FOR T HE A.Y. 2010-11 AND 2014-15 RESPECTIVELY IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 201(1) AND ITA 1464 & 1467/JP/2018_ DRM VS ACIT 2 201(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE AC T). FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y . 2010-11: 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE ACTION OF LD.CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBIT RARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE ON MERITS AND REJECTING THE SAME ON THE TECHNICAL GROUND. THE ACTION OF LD.CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND A GAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. 3. (A) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE ID. AO HAS ERRED IN CREATING A TOTAL DEMAND OF RS. 3,69,81,060. THE ID. AO HAS RAISED DEMAND OF RS. 2, 25,04,715 FOR SHORT DEDUCTION OF TDS AND RS. 1,44,76,345 TOWARDS INTEREST ON SHORT DEDUCTION OF TDS (B) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID. AO HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THE ASSESSEE TO BE TO BE DEEMED IN DEFAULT FOR ALLEGED NON OBTAINING OF THE PAN NUMBER S OF RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES AND THEREBY HOLDING THE ASSESS EE LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS @ 20 PERCENT AS AGAINST THE NORMAL TDS O BLIGATION WHICH WAS DULY COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A CTION OF THE LD. AO IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY, AND AGAI NST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASHING THE DEMAND BEING ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 4. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE ID. AO HAS ERRED IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206 AA WHEREAS THE SAME WAS BROUGHT TO STATUTE BOOK BY FINANCE ACT, 20 06 W.E.F. 01- 04-2010. THE ACTION OF THE LD.AO IS ILLEGAL, UNJUST IFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEAS E BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE DEMAND BEING ILLEGAL. THE ASSESSEE CRA VES ITS RIGHT TO ITA 1464 & 1467/JP/2018_ DRM VS ACIT 3 ADD, AMEND, OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS ON OR BEFOR E THE HEARING. 2. COMMON GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE F OR THE A.Y. 2014-15. 3. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PER USED. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A GOVERNMENT BODY AND AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 201(1) AN D 201(1A) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) , WHICH WAS BELATED. THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON THE PLEA THAT THERE WAS A DELAY IN THE FILING THE APPEAL WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE CAUS E. 4. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE OFFICE OF DRM WAS NOT AWARE WHETHER ANY ORDER CAN BE PASSED AGAINST IT AND WHETHER SUCH ORDER IS APPEALABLE AND IT CAME TO KNOW THAT SU CH ORDERS ARE APPEALABLE ONLY WHEN THE DEPARTMENT PRESSED FOR THE PAYMENT OF OUTSTANDING DEMAND. THE LD AR HAS INVITED OUR ATTENT ION TO THE CHRONOLOGICAL DATES OF COMMUNICATION WITH THE DEPART MENT WITH REGARD TO SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE INTERNAL COMMUNICATION OF THE ASSE SSEE TO THE SENIOR EMPLOYEES FOR SUBMITTING PAN DETAILS, INTERNAL CIRC ULATION OF DIRECTION BY ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE, WITH RESPECT TO FURNISHING INFORMATION IN ORDER TO AVOID PENAL PROV ISIONS. AS PER THE LD ITA 1464 & 1467/JP/2018_ DRM VS ACIT 4 AR, THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED IT BEST TO GET THE REQUI RED DETAILS SO THAT WRONGFUL DEMAND RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT CAN BE CANC ELLED. 5. IN SUPPORT OF HIS REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DEL AY, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: (I) MOTILAL PADAMPAT SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF U.P. (1979) 118 ITR 326 (SC) (II) COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI & ORS. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). (III) M/S HOSSANA MINISTRIES VS. ITO(EXEMPTIONS) TC (APPEAL) NO. 3 OF 2017 (MAD. H.C.) (IV) JAYVANTSINH N VAGHELA VS ITO (2013) 40 TAXMANN .COM 491 (GUJ). (V) CIT VS. SANMAC MOTOR FINANCE LTD. (2010) 322 IT R 309 (MAD). (VI) PRASHANTH PROJECTS LTD. VS DCIT, IT APPEAL NO. 192/2014 (BOM H.C.) (VII) MIDAS POLYMER COMPOUNDS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT IT A NO. 288/COCH/2017 (ITAT COCHIN BENCH) (VIII) M/S LAHOTI OVERSEAS LTD. VS DCIT ITA NO. 378 6/MUM/2012 (ITAT MUM BENCH) 6. BY RELYING ON THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, THE L D. AR HAS REQUESTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE CONDONED AND THE MATTER MAY BE DECIDED ON MERITS EITHER AT THE LEVEL OF THIS TRIBUNAL OR AT THE LEVEL OF THE LD. CI T(A) BY RESTORING BACK THE FILE TO THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(A). ITA 1464 & 1467/JP/2018_ DRM VS ACIT 5 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD CIT-DR HAS OPPOSED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONTENDED THAT THE DELAY CAN BE CONDON ED ONLY IF THERE IS NO GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR DELIBERATE INACTION OR LACK OF BONA FIDE. SECONDLY, THE APPELLANT SHOULD FURNISH ACCEPTABLE AND COGENT REASONS SUFFICIENT TO CONDONE DELAY. THESE ARE THE PRE-REQUISITES FOR COND ONING DELAY. THUS, TOUCHSTONE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS 'SUFFICIENCY /REASONABLENESS OF THE CAUSE'. FILING OF AN APPEAL IN TIME IS A NORMAL JUD ICIAL PROCESS, WHEREAS FILING A BELATED APPEAL IS AN ABNORMAL STEP. IT IS SAID THAT EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES NEED EXISTENCE OF EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTAN CES. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT HAS TO PROVE THAT ABNORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES REALLY AND FACTUALLY EXISTED IN ITS PARTICULAR CASE. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT IN THE CASE OF J.B. ADVANI & CO. (P.) LTD. V. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 395, THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAD HELD THAT EXPLANATION OF DELAY, FOR THE E NTIRE PERIOD IS NECESSARY. IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT IS EXPECTED OF THE AP PELLANT IN SUCH MATTERS IS TO SHOW THAT DELAY WAS OCCASIONED DUE TO S OME SUFFICIENT CAUSE. THE CAUSE PLEADED SHOULD NOT ONLY BE A PROBAB LE ONE BUT IT SHOULD BE REAL AND SUFFICIENTLY REASONABLE. IT WOULD NOT BE ANY SORT OF ASSERTION THAT WOULD AMOUNT TO SUFFICIENT CAUSE AND WOULD JUSTIFY THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE CAUSE PLEADED MUST FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE GIVEN CASE AND THE EXPLANATION OFFERED REGARDING THE DELAY OCCASIONED BY SUCH CAUSE SHOULD APPEAL TO REASONS SO AS TO ITA 1464 & 1467/JP/2018_ DRM VS ACIT 6 GET JUDICIAL APPROVAL. IN SHORT, IN MATTERS OF DELA Y IT IS NEITHER PRACTICABLE NOR DESIRABLE TO EXPLAIN MINUTE-TO-MINU TE/HOUR-TO-HOUR DELAY, BUT DELAY HAS TO BE EXPLAINED. 8. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS BY THE LD CIT-DR: (I) IN THE CASE OF K.G.N.M.M.W. EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH & ANALYSIS SOCIETY VS ITO [2015] 54 TAXMANN.COM 329 (JAIPUR - TRIB.), IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE JAIPUR TRIBUNAL THAT: IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CONDONATION PETITI ONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD, FAIL TO INVOKE ANY CONFIDENCE, FAIL TO EXPLAIN REASONABLE AND SUFFICIE NT CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF LONG DELAY OF 347 DAYS IN FILING THE SE APPEALS . THE ASSESSEE HAS TO COME CLEAN WITH ALL THE RELEVANT FA CTS, WHICH HAPPENED IN THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HA S TO EXPLAIN ALL THE EVENTS AND BE SPECIFIC IN THE DATES. THE DEPOSI TIONS MADE IN THE C.A. AFFIDAVIT REMAIN UNCORROBORATED AND THERE IS N O AFFIDAVIT FROM THE SAID SHRI MALIK PARVEJ IN SUPPORT OF THE AFFIDA VIT OF C.A.. THUS, THE VAGUE AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY THE C.A. REMAINS UNCOR ROBORATED AND UNRELIABLE. IN THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE, WE DECLINE TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 347 DAYS IN FILING THESE APPEALS.' (II) IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT IN A RECENT DECISION DATED 13.11.2018 IN THE CASE OF CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. VS DCIT IN ITA NOS. 341 TO 345/COCH/2018 13.11.2018, THE DELAY WAS NOT COND ONED BY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL BY OBSERVING THAT: THE REASON AS COME OUT FROM THE CONDONATION PETITI ONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS STATED EARLIER, IS THAT THERE WAS TRAN SFER OF THE OFFICER WHO WAS HANDLING THE ISSUE. WE CANNOT ACCEPT SUCH P ROPOSITION AS IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON TO CONDONE THE DELAY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IS TO BE CON DONED SINCE THE ISSUE ON MERIT COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. T HIS SUBMISSION ITA 1464 & 1467/JP/2018_ DRM VS ACIT 7 IGNORES THE FACT THAT THE OBJECT OF THE LAW OF LIMI TATION IS TO BRING CERTAINTY AND FINALITY TO LITIGATION. THIS IS BASED ON THE MAXIM INTEREST REIPUBLICAE SIT FINIS LITIUM I.E. FOR THE GENERAL BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE, BECAUSE THE OBJECT IS EVERY LEG AL REMEDY MUST BE ALIVE FOR A LEGISLATIVELY FIXED PERIOD OF TIME. THE OBJECT IS TO GET ON WITH LIFE, IF YOU HAVE FAILED TO FILE AN APPEAL WIT HIN THE PERIOD PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE. IT IS FOR THE GENERAL BENE FIT OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY SO AS TO ENSURE THAT STALE AND OLD MATTER S ARE NOT AGITATED AND THE PARTY WHO IS AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER CAN EXPEDITIOUSLY MOVER HIGHER FORUM TO CHALLENGE THE S AME, IF HE IS AGGRIEVED BY IT. AS OBSERVED BY THE APEX COURT IN MANY CASES, THE LA W ASSIST THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS AS FOUND IN THE MAXIM VILIL ANTI BUS NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA S UBVENIUNT. IN OUR OPINION, MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT VIG ILANT, IT CANNOT FOLLOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS BESTOWED WITH A RIGHT T O THE DELAY BEING CONDONED. WE ARE CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT THE PER IOD OF LIMITATION SHOULD NOT COME AS AN HINDRANCE TO DO SUBSTANTIAL J USTICE BETWEEN THE PARTIES. HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME, A PARTY CAN NOT SLEEP OVER ITS RIGHT IGNORING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION AND WITHOU T GIVING SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY, EXCEPT ITS APPEAL TO BE ENTERTAINED MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS A BANK. APPEALS FILED BEYOND A PERIOD OF LIMITATION HAVE BE EN ENTERTAINED BY US WHERE THE DELAY HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAIN ED SUCH AS IN CASES OF BONAFIDE MISTAKE. THUS THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE WELL AWARE OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND THE PERIOD OF LIMIT ATION AND SHOULD PURSUE ITS REMEDIES DILIGENTLY. IT CANNOT EXPECT TH EIR APPEALS BE ENTERTAINED BECAUSE THEY ARE AFTER ALL THE ASSESSEE , NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT DELAY IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAINED. HENCE, THE DELAY IS NOT CONDONED AND THE APPEALS ARE UNADMITTED. (III) IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT, HY DERABAD VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 09.09.2016 IN THE CASE OF MIDDINARSAIAH VS. DCIT [2016] 48 CCH 54 (HYD. TRIB.) HAS CONSIDERED A NUMB ER OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WHILE REJECTING THE APPLICA TION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND HELD AS UNDER: ITA 1464 & 1467/JP/2018_ DRM VS ACIT 8 WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REASONS MENTIONED IN TH E PETITION FOR CONDONATION ARE NOT CONVINCING AS THE REASONS MENTI ONED FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE'S ATTENTION WAS DIVERTED DUE TO CRIMINAL CASES AND PRE-OCCUPATION I N THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS WERE OVER BY 0 6/03/2013 BUT THE DELAY BEYOND THIS DAY IS PURE NEGLIGENCE ON THE PAR T OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DELAY OF WHICH CANNOT BE CONDONED AS PER THE RE ASONS MENTIONED IN THE PETITION. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE REFER TO TH E FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: 4.5 SINCE, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE VERY WELL AVOIDED THE DELAY BY EXERCISING OF DUE CARE AND ATT ENTION AT LEAST AFTER THE MONTH OF MARCH'2013, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED O PINION THAT THERE EXISTS NO SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE D ELAY OF AN INORDINATE PERIOD OF 395 DAYS AND APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY HON'BLE COURTS IN THE AFORESAID DECISIONS, WE ARE NOT INCLI NED TO CONDONE THE SAID DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE US. ACCORDIN GLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS BARRED BY LIMITATIO N. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED IN THE MANNER AS INDICATED ABOVE. RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PR ONOUNCEMENTS: 96 TAXMANN.COM (496) (SC) 50 TAXMANN.COM (446) RAJ 180 TAXMAN 476 (SC) THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT WAS SUB MITTED BY THE LD. CIT-DR THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF INORDINATE DELA Y OF ABOUT 31 MONTHS IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), HENCE, THE R ELEVANT GROUND OF APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE REJECTED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BE DISMISSED, ACCORDINGLY. ITA 1464 & 1467/JP/2018_ DRM VS ACIT 9 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAR EFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAD ALSO DELIBERATED ON THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS REFERRED BY THE LOWER AU THORITIES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS AS WELL AS CITED BY THE LD. AR AND LD. DR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US IN THE CONTEXT OF FACTU AL MATRIX OF THE CASE WITH REGARD TO CONDONATION OF DELAY. WE HAD ALSO CAR EFULLY GONE THROUGH THE EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD FOR THE EFFORTS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING REQUIRES RETURNS WHICH INCLUDES THE INTER NAL COMMUNICATION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE SENIOR EMPLOYEES FOR SUBMITTING PAN DETAILS, INTIMATION BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT FOR DEPUTIN G PERSONNEL FOR VERIFICATION OF TDS AND TCS DETAILS ETC. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WE OBSERVE THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE AND BONAFIDE CA USE FOR DELAY. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAN D ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI & ORS. 167 ITR 0471 HAS OBSERVED AS UNDE R: THE LEGISLATURE HAS CONFERRED THE POWER TO CONDONE DELAY BY ENACTING S. 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT OF 1963 IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE C OURTS TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO PARTIES BY DISPOSING OF MATTERS ON 'MERITS'. THE EXPRESSION 'SUFFICIENT CAUSE' EMPLOYED BY THE LEGISLATURE IS ADEQUATELY ELASTIC T O ENABLE THE COURTS TO APPLY THE LAW IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER WHICH SUBSERVES THE ENDS OF JUSTICETHAT BEING THE LIFE-PURPOSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE INST ITUTION OF COURTS. THE DOCTRINE OF EQUALITY BEFORE LAW DEMANDS THAT ALL LITIGANTS, INCLUDING THE STATE AS A LITIGANT, ARE ACCORDED THE SAME TREATMENT AND THE L AW IS ADMINISTERED IN AN EVEN- HANDED MANNER. THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR ACCORD ING A STEP-MOTHERLY ITA 1464 & 1467/JP/2018_ DRM VS ACIT 10 TREATMENT WHEN THE 'STATE' IS THE APPLICANT PRAYING FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. IN FACT, EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT ON ACCOUNT OF AN IMP ERSONAL MACHINERY (NO ONE IN CHARGE OF THE MATTER IS DIRECTLY HIT OR HURT BY THE JUDGMENT SOUGHT TO BE SUBJECTED TO APPEAL) AND THE INHERENT BUREAUCRATIC METHODOLOGY IMBUED WITH THE NOTE-MAKING, FILE- PUSHING, AND PASSING-ON-THE- BUCK ETHOS, DELAY ON ITS PART IS LESS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND THOUGH MORE DIFFICU LT TO APPROVE. IN ANY EVENT, THE STATE WHICH REPRESENTS THE COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF THE COMMUNITY DOES NOT DESERVE A LITIGANT NON GRATA STATUS. THE COURTS, THEREFORE, HAVE TO BE INFORMED OF THE SPIRIT AND PHILOSOPHY OF THE PROVISION IN THE COURS E OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE EXPRESSION 'SUFFICIENT CAUSE'. SO ALSO THE SAME APP ROACH HAS TO BE EVIDENCED IN ITS APPLICATION TO MATTERS AT HAND WITH THE END IN VIEW TO DO EVEN-HANDED JUSTICE ON MERITS IN PREFERENCE TO THE APPROACH WHI CH SCUTTLES A DECISION ON MERITS. 10. IT IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE VERDICT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT THAT SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CO NDONATION OF DELAY SHOULD BE INTERPRETED WITH A VIEW TO EVEN-HANDED JUST ICE ON MERITS IN PREFERENCE TO APPROACH WHICH SCUTTLES A DECISION ON MERITS. FURTHER THE MORE POWER TO CONDONE THE DELAY IS CONFERRED WITH A V IEW TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO LITIGANTS BY DI SPOSING OF THE CASES ON MERITS. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND MATTER IS RESTORED BA CK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING ON MERIT AFTER GIVING DUE OP PORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA 1464 & 1467/JP/2018_ DRM VS ACIT 11 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PART LY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH FEBRUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO JES'K LH 'KEKZ (VIJAY PAL RAO) (RAMESH C SHARMA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 11 TH FEBRUARY, 2019 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT-THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE A.C.I.T.(TDS), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 1464 & 1467/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR