Branch Manager, LIC of India, Paradeep V. ITO(TDS), Cuttack

ITA 186/CTK/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 18622114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK MOHANTY
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH , CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI P.K.BANSAL (AM) AND D.T.GARASIA (JM) I.T.A. NOS.186 TO 190/CTK/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-0 8 & 2008-09 BRANCH MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, PARADIP BRANCH BRANCH, PARADIP PA NO.BBNLO 0127 B VS ITO (TDS), CUTTACK APPELLANT RESPONDENT FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI ASHOK MOHANTY FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI ANIL SHARMA DATE OF HEARING: 05/02/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 3 / 3 /2015 ORDER PER P.K.BANSAL, AM ALL THESE APPEALS SINCE INVOLVED A COMMON ISSUE FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS ALL DATED 14.2.2014 FOR THE RESPECT IVE ASSESSMENT YEARS, WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GOING TH ROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES, WE NOTED THAT ALL THESE APPEALS SINCE HAVE BEEN FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD CIT(A) AFTER A DELAY OF MORE THAN FOUR YEARS. LD CIT(A) DID NOT FI ND ANY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY AND, THEREFORE, DISMISSED ALL THESE APPEALS BY OBSERVING I, THEREFORE, REFUSE TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF MORE THAN FOUR YEARS IN FILING THE APPEAL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE APPEAL IS NOT ADMITTED AND IS DISMISSED FOR DELAY. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS MST. KATIJI (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), HELD THAT REFUSING TO CONDONE THE DELAY CAN RESULT IN A MERITORIOUS MATTER BEING THROWN OUT AT THE VERY THRESHOLD AND CAUSE OF JUSTICE BEING DEFEATED. AS AGAINST THIS, WHEN DELAY IS CONDONED, THE HIGHEST THAT CAN HAPPENS IS THAT A CAUSE WOULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES. IN THE SAID CASE, HONBLE SUPREME COURT ALSO OBSERVED THAT WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE A ND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERV ES TO BE PREFERRED, FOR THE OTHER SIDE CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE VESTED RIGHT IN INJUSTICE BEING DONE BECAUSE OF A NON-DELIBERATE DELAY. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE COURT THAT A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY RESORTING TO DELAY. IN FACT, HE RUNS A SERIOUS RISK. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT, THE APPEALS CANNOT MERELY BE DISMISSED ON TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION WHILE CONDONING THE DELAY OR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS THE PREROGATIVE OF THE APPE LLATE AUTHORITY BUT WHILE CONDONING THE DELAY, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY SHOULD LOOK INTO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE JUSTICE. IT IS A CASE WHERE THE BRANCH MANAGER OF LIC INDIA, PARADIP BRANCH IS INVOLVED. IT MAY BE POSSIBLE THAT HE MAY NOT BE AWARE OF THE TECHNICALITY AND COMPLEXITY OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. WE ALSO NOTED THAT IN THE CASE OF MOTILAL PADAMPAT SUGAR MILLS CO VS STAT E OF U.P., (1978) 118 ITR 326 (SC), THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THERE IS NO MAX IM THAT EVERYBODY SHOULD KNOW THE LAW. WE NOTED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MOTILAL PADAMPAT SUGAR MILL (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT EVERY PERSON KNOWS TH E LAW. IT IS OFTEN SAID THAT EVERYONE IS PRESUMED TO KNOW THE LAW, BUT THAT IS N OT A CORRECT STATEMENT; THERE IS NO SUCH MAXIM KNOWN TO THE LAW. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE MAY BE POSSIBILITY THAT THE BRANCH MANAGER OF LIC O F INDIA, PARADIP BRANCH, AGAINST WHOM THE LIABILITY HAS BEEN CREATED BY PASSING AN ORDER UNDE R SECTION 201(1) & 201(1A) MAY NOT BE AWARE OF THE LIABILITY OF FILING THE APPEALS AND, T HEREFORE, AS SOON AS HE CAME TO KNOW, HE FILED THE APPEALS WITH THE APPLICATION FOR THE CONDONATIO N OF DELAY. WHILE CONDONING THE DELAY, THE COURT SHOULD BE LIBERAL AND SYMPATHETIC AND SHOULD EXAMINE EACH AND EVERY CASE. LOOKING INTO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE BR ANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, PARADIP BRANCH, PARADIP, IN OUR OPINION, CANNOT BE REGARDED THAT TH E DELAY HAS BEEN OCCURRED DUE TO NEGLIGENCE. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LD CIT(A) FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING T HE APPEALS BEFORE LD CIT(A) AS, IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PREVENTED BY SUFFICI ENT CAUSE TO FILING THE APPEALS WITHIN DUE DATE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LD CI T(A) IN EACH OF THE CASE NOT CONDONING THE DELAY AND DISMISSING THE APPEALS AS NOT ADMITTED. WE, ACCORDINGLY, RESTORE ALL THESE APPEALS TO THE FILE OF LD CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION THAT LD CI T(A) SHOULD REDECIDE ALL THESE APPEALS ON MERITS AFTER GIVING PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN PURSUANCE WITH RULE 34(4) BY P UTTING THE COPY OF THE SAME ON NOTICE BOARD ON 3/3/2015. SD/- SD/- (D.T.GARASIA) (P.K.BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, PANAJI 3 / 3 /2015 B.K.PARIDA, SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT: BRANCH MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPO RATION OF INDIA, PARADIP BRANCH, PARADIP 2. THE RESPONDENT: ITO (TDS), CUTTACK 3. THE CIT, CUTTACK 4. THE CIT(A), CUTTACK 5. DR, CUTTACK BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, CUTTACK