Harpal Singh , Bangalore V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 262/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4565 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-07-2020
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIAYDARSHI MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: S V RAVISHANKAR; PRANAV KRISHNA A RS
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Condonation of delay
• Section: 22; 11

Judgement Text

ITA NO.262/BANG/2019 HARPAL SINGH, BENAGALURU IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.262/BANG/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 HARPAL SINGH NO.144, 1 ST MAIN ROAD 11 TH CROSS, IDEAL HOMES RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU-560 098 PAN NO : AFKPS1542J VS. ACIT CIRCLE-3(2)(1) BENGALURU APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.V. RAVISHANKAR & SHRI PRANAV KRISHNA, A.RS RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRIAYDARSHI MISHRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 22.10.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.10.2020 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2018 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-3, BENGALURU AND IT RELATES TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICE THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 451 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMI SSED THE APPEAL WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY BY OBSERVING THAT THERE EXISTS NO SUFFICIENT OR GOOD REASON FOR CONDONING INORDINATE DELAY OF 451 DAYS ITA NO.262/BANG/2019 HARPAL SINGH, BENAGALURU PAGE 2 OF 5 IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE HIM. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TA KEN SUPPORT OF DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE C ASE OF RAMLAL VS. REWA COALFIELDS LTD. AIR 1962 SC 361 AND ALSO T HE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL A ND OTHERS VS. LIVING MEDIA INDIA PVT. LTD. (2012) 348 ITR 7. HE ALSO TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THE ABOVE SAID DELAY IS AN INORDINATE DELAY. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIS AUDITOR AND IN TUR N THE AUDITOR SOUGHT FOR A OPINION FROM TAX ADVOCATE. THE PAPERS WERE MISPLACED IN THE ADVOCATES OFFICE AND HENCE THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED IN TIME. ACCORDINGLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO WILFUL DEFAULT AND THE DELAY HAS OCCURRED DUE TO REASONS BEYOND THE CO NTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WO ULD BE PUT TO IRREPARABLE LOSS IF THE APPEAL IS NOT DECIDED ON ME RITS. ACCORDINGLY, HE PRAYED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE LD . CIT(A) MAY BE CONDONED. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. D.R. WHO STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). 5. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN FOLLOWING EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. I AM AN INDIVIDUAL AND FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14 I RECEI VED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 29.3.2016. THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE AP PEAL WAS 28.4.2016 WHEREAS THE APPEAL WAS FILED ON 26.7.2017. THUS TH ERE IS A DELAY OF 1 YEAR AND 3 MONTHS. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SERVED ON ME AND IMMEDIATE LY I HAD HANDED OVER THE PAPERS TO MY AUDITOR SRI VENKATESULU ADIKE FOR FURTHER ADVICE. THE AUDITOR HAD SOUGHT FOR AN OPINION FROM TAX ADVO CATE. THE PAPERS WERE MISPLACED IN THE ADVOCATES OFFICE. HENCE THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED WITHIN THE TIME. THE AUDITOR GOT THE PAPERS B ACK FROM THE TAX ADVOCATE AND SOUGHT FOR AN ADVICE WITH ANOTHER ADVO CATE WHO ADVISED ME TO FILE AN APPEAL AND FINALLY THE APPEAL WAS FIL ED ON 26.7.2017. ITA NO.262/BANG/2019 HARPAL SINGH, BENAGALURU PAGE 3 OF 5 IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES THE DELAY IS NOT DUE TO MY NEGLIGENCE, AND IT IS BONAFIDE AND HENCE IT IS PRAYED THE DELAY MAY KI NDLY BE CONDONED AND APPEAL MAY BE ADMITTED AND DISPOSED OF ON MERITS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 6. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED EXP LANATION FOR THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A). IN CO LLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, ANANTNAG AND ANOTHER V. MST. KATIJI AN D OTHERS (167 ITR 471(SC), THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- THE LEGISLATURE HAS CONFERRED POWER TO CONDONE DE LAY BY ENACTING SECTION 5 OF THE INDIAN LIMITATION ACT OF 1963 IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIC E TO PARTIES BY DISPOSING OF MATTERS ON MERITS. 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 JUSTICE, FOR THA T IS THE LIFE-PURPOSE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE INSTITUTION O F COURTS. THE LEARNED JUDGES EMPHASIZED ON ADOPTION OF A LIBERAL APPROACH WHILE DEALING WITH THE APPLICATIONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AS ORDINARILY A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY LODGING AN APPEAL LATE AND REFUSAL TO CONDONE DELAY CAN RESULT IN A MERITORIOUS MATTER BEING THRO WN OUT AT THE VERY THRESHOLD AND THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE BEING D EFEATED. IT WAS STRESSED THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE A PEDANTIC APPROACH BUT THE DOCTRINE THAT IS TO BE KEPT IN MIN D IS THAT THE MATTER HAS TO BE DEALT WITH IN A RATIONAL COMMO NSENSE PRAGMATIC MANNER AND CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERRED OVER THE TECHNICAL CONSIDE RATIONS. IT WAS ALSO RULED THAT THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT DELAY IS OCCASIONED DELIBERATELY OR ON ACCOUNT OF CULPABLE N EGLIGENCE AND THAT THE COURTS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO LEGALISE IN JUSTICE ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS AS IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO REMOVE ITA NO.262/BANG/2019 HARPAL SINGH, BENAGALURU PAGE 4 OF 5 INJUSTICE. IN THE SAID CASE THE DIVISION BENCH OBS ERVED THAT THE STATE WHICH REPRESENTS THE COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF THE COMMUNITY DOES NOT DESERVE A LITIGANT-NON GRATA STA TUS AND THE COURTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE INFORMED WITH THE SPI RIT AND PHILOSOPHY OF THE PROVISION IN THE COURSE OF INTERP RETATION OF THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE. 7. THE PRINCIPLES THAT EMANATE FROM THE ABOVE SAID DECISIONS ARE THAT, IN THE MATTER OF CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILI NG APPEALS BEYOND THE LIMITATION PERIOD, THE COURTS ARE EMPOWERED TO CONDONE THE DELAY, PROVIDED THE LITIGANT IS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT T HERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN PREFERRING APPEAL BEYOND THE LIMITATION P ERIOD. THE COURTS HAVE ALSO HELD THAT THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUS E SHOULD RECEIVE LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION SO AS TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL J USTICE. HENCE THE QUESTION OF CONDONATION OF DELAY IS A FACTUAL MATTE R AND THE RESULT WOULD DEPEND UPON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE CAU SE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DELAY. IT HAS ALSO BEEN OPINED TH AT GENERALLY DELAYS IN PREFERRING APPEALS ARE REQUIRED TO BE CONDONED I N THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WHERE NO GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR DELIBERATE IN ACTION OR LACK OF BONA FIDES IS IMPUTABLE TO THE PARTY SEEKING CONDON ATION OF THE DELAY. 8. FROM THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSES SEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS GROSS NE GLIGENCE OR DELIBERATE INACTION OR LACK OF BONAFIDES IN IT. AC CORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THA T THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE CONDONED. A CCORDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A) . 9. SINCE THE LD CIT(A) HAS NOT DISPOSED THE GR OUNDS URGED IN THE APPEAL, WE RESTORE THE APPEAL TO HIS FILE FOR ADJUD ICATING ALL THE GROUNDS. ITA NO.262/BANG/2019 HARPAL SINGH, BENAGALURU PAGE 5 OF 5 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S TREATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND OCT, 2020 SD/- (BEENA PILLAI) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED 22 ND OCT, 2020. VG/SPS COPY TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.