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

ITA 1466/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5699 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 18-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHOK KHANNA JCIT DHK
• Keywords: Rule of consistency; Period of limitation; Condonation of delay; Bonafide mistake; TDS; Set aside
• 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 BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH JES'K LH- 'KEKZ] YS[KK LNL; ,O A H JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NOS. 1465 & 1466/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2011-12 & 12-13. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, DRM OFFICE, NEAR JAIPUR JUNCTION, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ACIT (TDS), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/TAN NO. JPRD02777F VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJEEV SOGANI (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI ASHOK KHANNA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 13.05.2019. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14/05/2019. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGA INST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT (A)-3, JAIPUR BOTH DATED 23 RD OCTOBER, 2018 ARISING FROM THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE IT A CT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 AND 12-13 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE HAS R AISED THE COMMON GROUNDS IN THESE APPEALS. THE GROUNDS RAISED FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2011-12 ARE AS UNDER :- 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. TH E ACTION OF LD.CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FAC TS 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 ASSESSEE ON MERI TS AND REJECTING THE SAME ON THE TECHNICAL GROUND. THE ACTION OF LD.CIT (A) I S ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. 2 ITA NOS. 1465 & 1466/JP/2018 DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, JAIPUR. 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.71,854/-. TH E ID. AO HAS RAISED DEMAND OF RS. 46,833/- FOR SHORT DEDUCTION OF TDS A ND RS. 24,751/- 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 DEFAU LT FOR ALLEGED NON OBTAINING OF THE PAN NUMBERS OF RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEE S AND THEREBY HOLDING THE ASSESSEE LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS @ 20 PERCENT AS A GAINST THE NORMAL TDS OBLIGATION WHICH WAS DULY COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE ACTION 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. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT CHALLENG ED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). SINCE THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN LIMINE BY THE LD. CIT (A). THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAI NED THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AS IT WAS EXPLAINED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 14-15. THE LD. D/R HAS ALSO CONTENDED OPPOSING THE CONDONATION OF DELAY AS RAISED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 14-15. 3. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE H AS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 11 TH FEBRUARY, 2019 IN ITA NOS. 1464 AND 1467/JP/2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2014-15 WHEREI N THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT DR WERE CONSIDERED AND FINALLY THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONDONED THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER IN PARAS 4 TO 10 ARE AS UNDER :- 3 ITA NOS. 1465 & 1466/JP/2018 DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, JAIPUR. 4. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT THE OFFICE OF DRM WAS NOT AWARE WHETHER ANY ORDER CAN BE PASSED AGAINST IT AND WHET HER SUCH ORDER IS APPEALABLE AND IT CAME TO KNOW THAT SUCH ORDERS ARE APPEALABLE ONLY WHEN THE DEPARTMENT PRESSED FOR THE PAYMENT OF OUTSTANDING DEMAND. THE LD AR HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE CHRONOLOGICAL DATES OF COMMUNICATION WITH TH E DEPARTMENT WITH REGARD TO SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE H AS ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE INTERNAL COMMUNICATION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE S ENIOR EMPLOYEES FOR SUBMITTING PAN DETAILS, INTERNAL CIRCULATION OF DIRECTION BY A SSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE, WITH RESPECT TO FURNISHING INFORMATI ON IN ORDER TO AVOID PENAL PROVISIONS. AS PER THE LD AR, THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIE D IT BEST TO GET THE REQUIRED DETAILS SO THAT WRONGFUL DEMAND RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT CA N BE CANCELLED. 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 LD. AR HAS REQUESTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SH OULD BE CONDONED AND THE MATTER MAY BE DECIDED ON MERITS EITHER AT THE LEVEL OF THI S TRIBUNAL OR AT THE LEVEL OF THE LD. CIT(A) BY RESTORING BACK THE FILE TO THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(A). 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD CIT-DR HAS OPPOSED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONTENDED THAT THE DELAY CAN BE CONDONED ONLY IF TH ERE IS NO GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR DELIBERATE INACTION OR LACK OF BONA FIDE. SECONDLY, THE APPELLANT SHOULD FURNISH 4 ITA NOS. 1465 & 1466/JP/2018 DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, JAIPUR. ACCEPTABLE AND COGENT REASONS SUFFICIENT TO CONDONE DELAY. THESE ARE THE PRE- REQUISITES FOR CONDONING DELAY. THUS, TOUCHSTONE FO R CONDONATION OF DELAY IS 'SUFFICIENCY/REASONABLENESS OF THE CAUSE'. FILING O F AN APPEAL IN TIME IS A NORMAL JUDICIAL PROCESS, WHEREAS FILING A BELATED APPEAL I S AN ABNORMAL STEP. IT IS SAID THAT EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES NEED EXISTENCE OF EXTRAORDIN ARY CIRCUMSTANCES. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT HAS TO PROVE THAT ABNORMAL CIRCUMSTAN CES 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 COU RT HAD HELD THAT EXPLANATION OF DELAY, FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD IS NECESSARY. IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT IS EXPECTED OF THE APPELLANT IN SUCH MATTERS IS TO SHOW THAT DELAY WAS OCCASIONED DUE TO SOME SUFFICIENT CAUSE. THE CAUSE PLEADED SHOULD NOT ONLY BE A PROBABLE ONE BUT IT SHOULD BE REAL AND SUFFICIENTLY REASONABLE. IT WOULD NOT B E ANY SORT OF ASSERTION THAT WOULD AMOUNT TO SUFFICIENT CAUSE AND WOULD JUSTIFY THE CO NDONATION 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 GET JUDICIAL APPROVAL. IN SHORT, I N MATTERS OF DELAY 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 JUDICI AL PRONOUNCEMENTS BY THE LD CIT- DR: (I) IN THE CASE OF K.G.N.M.M.W. EDUCATIONAL RESEARC H & 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.' 5 ITA NOS. 1465 & 1466/JP/2018 DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, JAIPUR. (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 NO S. 341 TO 345/COCH/2018 13.11.2018, THE DELAY WAS NOT CONDONED BY THE HONB LE 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 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 WITHIN 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. 6 ITA NOS. 1465 & 1466/JP/2018 DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, JAIPUR. (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. D CIT [2016] 48 CCH 54 (HYD. TRIB.) HAS CONSIDERED A NUMBER OF JUDICIAL PR ONOUNCEMENTS WHILE REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND HELD AS UNDER: 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 A SSESSEE'S ATTENTION WAS DIVERTED DUE TO CRIMINAL CASES AND PRE-OCCUPATI ON IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS WERE OVER BY 06/03/2013 BUT THE DELAY BEYOND THIS DAY IS PURE NE GLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DELAY OF WHICH CANNOT BE CONDONED AS PER THE REASONS MENTIONED IN THE PETITION. IN THIS CONN ECTION, WE REFER TO THE 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 CONSID ERED OPINION THAT THERE EXISTS NO SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUS E FOR THE DELAY OF AN INORDINATE PERIOD OF 395 DAYS AND APPLYING THE P RINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY HON'BLE COURTS IN THE AFORESAID DECISIONS, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO CONDONE THE SAID DELAY IN FILING THE AP PEAL BEFORE US. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED AS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED IN THE MANNER AS INDICATED ABOVE. RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL P RONOUNCEMENTS: 96 TAXMANN.COM (496) (SC) 50 TAXMANN.COM (446) RAJ 180 TAXMAN 476 (SC). THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. CIT- DR THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO BRING ON R ECORD ANY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF INORDINATE DELAY OF ABOUT 31 MON THS IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), HENCE, THE RELEVANT GROUND O F APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE REJECTED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BE DISMISSE D, ACCORDINGLY. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAR EFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAD ALSO DELIBERATED O N THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS REFERRED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THEIR RESPECTI VE ORDERS AS WELL AS CITED BY THE LD. 7 ITA NOS. 1465 & 1466/JP/2018 DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, JAIPUR. AR AND LD. DR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE U S IN THE CONTEXT OF FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE WITH REGARD TO CONDONATION OF DELAY. WE HAD ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD FOR THE EFFORTS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING REQUIRES RETURNS WHICH INCLUDES THE INTERNAL COMMUN ICATION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE SENIOR EMPLOYEES FOR SUBMITTING PAN DETAILS, INTIMA TION BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT FOR DEPUTING 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 CAUSE 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 UNDER: THE LEGISLATURE HAS CONFERRED THE POWER TO CONDONE DELAY BY ENACTING S. 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT OF 1963 IN ORDER TO ENABLE TH E COURTS TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO PARTIES BY DISPOSING OF MATTERS ON 'MERI TS'. THE EXPRESSION 'SUFFICIENT CAUSE' EMPLOYED BY THE LEGISLATURE IS A DEQUATELY ELASTIC TO 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 INSTITUTION OF COURTS. THE DOCTRINE OF EQUALITY BEFORE LAW DEMA NDS THAT ALL LITIGANTS, INCLUDING THE STATE AS A LITIGANT, ARE ACCORDED THE SAME TREATMENT AND THE LAW IS ADMINISTERED IN AN EVEN- HANDED MANNER. THER E IS NO WARRANT FOR ACCORDING A STEP-MOTHERLY TREATMENT WHEN THE 'STATE ' IS THE APPLICANT PRAYING FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. IN FACT, EXPERIEN CE SHOWS THAT ON ACCOUNT OF AN IMPERSONAL MACHINERY (NO ONE IN CHARGE OF THE MATTER IS DIRECTLY HIT OR HURT BY THE JUDGMENT SOUGHT TO BE SUBJECTED TO APPE AL) AND THE INHERENT BUREAUCRATIC METHODOLOGY IMBUED WITH THE NOTE-MAKIN G, FILE- PUSHING, AND PASSING-ON-THE-BUCK ETHOS, DELAY ON ITS PART IS LES S DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND THOUGH MORE DIFFICULT TO APPROVE. IN ANY EVENT, THE STATE WHICH REPRESENTS THE COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF THE COMMUNITY DOES NOT DESE RVE A LITIGANT NON GRATA STATUS. THE COURTS, THEREFORE, HAVE TO BE INFORMED OF THE SPIRIT AND PHILOSOPHY OF THE PROVISION IN THE COURSE OF THE IN TERPRETATION 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. 8 ITA NOS. 1465 & 1466/JP/2018 DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, JAIPUR. 10. IT IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE VERDICT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT THAT SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDONATION O F DELAY SHOULD BE INTERPRETED WITH A VIEW TO EVEN-HANDED JUSTICE ON MERITS IN PRE FERENCE TO APPROACH WHICH SCUTTLES A DECISION ON MERITS. FURTHER THE MORE POW ER TO CONDONE THE DELAY IS CONFERRED WITH A VIEW TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO DO SU BSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO LITIGANTS BY DISPOSING OF THE CASES ON MERITS. CONSIDERING THE T OTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING ON MERIT AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, ON THE IDENTICAL FACTS, THE TRIBUNAL H AS FOUND THE CAUSE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS REASONABLE. THEREFORE, TO MAINTAIN THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY, WE FOLLOW THE EARLIER DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND CO NSEQUENTLY THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) IS CONDONED. THE MA TTERS FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE SET ASIDE TO THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT (A ) FOR DECIDING ON MERITS AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/05/2 019. SD/- SD/- ( JES'K LH- 'KEKZ ) ( FOT; IKY JKWO (RAMESH C. SHARMA ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 14/05/2019. DAS/ 9 ITA NOS. 1465 & 1466/JP/2018 DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, JAIPUR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, J AIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE ACIT (TDS), JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 1465 & 1466/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR