Smt.Gurusharan Kaur , Bangalore V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 263/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3689 (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: PRIYADARSHI 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: 64; 22; 11

Judgement Text

ITA NO.263/BANG/2019 SMT. GURUSHARAN KAUR, BENGALURU IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.263/BANG/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 SMT. GURUSHARAN KAUR NO.144, 1 ST MAIN ROAD 11 TH CROSS, IDEAL HOMES RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU-560 068 PAN NO : AIRPK3011C VS. ACIT CIRCLE-3(2)(1) BENGALURU APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.V. RAVISHANKAR & SHRI PRANAV KRISHNA, A.R.S RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRIYADARSHI 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 64 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL B Y THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED TH E APPEAL WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY BY OBSERVING THAT THERE EXISTS NO SUFFICIENT OR GOOD REASON FOR CONDONING INORDINATE DELAY OF 64 DA YS IN FILING APPEAL ITA NO.263/BANG/2019 SMT. GURUSHARAN KAUR, BENGALURU PAGE 2 OF 5 BEFORE HIM. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN SUPPORT OF DE CISION RENDERED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMLAL VS. REWA COALFIELDS LTD. AIR 1962 SC 361 AND ALSO THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL AND OTHERS VS. LIVING MED IA 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 LEFT F OR HER HOME TOWN. IN THE ABSENCE OF DIGITAL SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE , THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED IN FILED IN TIME. ACCORDINGLY, HE SUB MITTED THAT THERE WAS NO WILFUL DEFAULT AND THE DELAY HAS OCCURRED DUE TO REASONS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE PUT TO IRREPARABLE LOSS IF THE APPEAL IS N OT DECIDED ON MERITS. ACCORDINGLY, HE PRAYED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING APP EAL 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 AY 2013-14, I RECEI VED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 12.12.2017. THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE A PPEAL WAS 10-01- 2018 WHERE AS THE APPEAL WAS FILED ON 19-03-2018. THUS THERE IS A DELAY OF 2 MONTHS 8 DAYS. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SERVED AND I HAD HANDED OV ER THE SAME TO MY AUDITOR AND I LEFT FOR MY HOME TOWN TO SEE MY AI LING RELATIVES AND I WAS BACK FROM MY HOME TOWN BY FIRST WEEK OF MARCH. SINCE MY AUDITOR DID NOT HAVE MY DIGITAL SIGNATURE HE WAS HOLDING TH E APPEAL. I GOT MY DIGITAL SIGNATURE MADE ON 14.3.2018 AND APPEAL WAS FILED 19-03-2018. SINCE THE DELAY WAS DUE TO THE IGNORANCE OF FACT TH AT I WAS NOT AWARE THAT APPEAL CANNOT BE FILED WITHOUT DIGITAL SIGNATU RE. HENCE I REQUEST ITA NO.263/BANG/2019 SMT. GURUSHARAN KAUR, BENGALURU PAGE 3 OF 5 YOU TO CONDONE THE DELAY 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 COL LECTOR, 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 DEL AY BY ENACTING SECTION 5 OF THE INDIAN LIMITATION ACT OF 1963 IN O RDER TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO PARTIES BY DISP OSING OF MATTERS ON MERITS. THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE EMPLOYED BY THE LEGISLATURE IS ADEQUATELY ELASTIC TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO APPLY THE LAW IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER WHICH SUBSERVES THE ENDS OF JUSTI CE, FOR THAT 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 O RDINARILY A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY LODGING AN APPEAL LATE AND REFUSAL TO CONDONE DELAY CAN RESULT IN A MERITORIOUS MATTER BE ING THROWN OUT AT THE VERY THRESHOLD AND THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE BEING D EFEATED. IT WAS STRESSED THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE A PEDANTIC APPROA CH BUT THE DOCTRINE THAT IS TO BE KEPT IN MIND IS THAT THE MATTER HAS T O BE DEALT WITH IN A RATIONAL COMMONSENSE PRAGMATIC MANNER AND CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERRED OVER THE TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS. IT WAS ALSO RULED THAT THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT DE LAY IS OCCASIONED DELIBERATELY OR ON ACCOUNT OF CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE A ND THAT THE COURTS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO LEGALISE INJUSTICE ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS AS IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO REMOVE INJUSTICE. IN THE SAID CASE THE DIVISION BENCH OBSERVED THAT THE STATE WHICH REPRESENTS THE COLLECTIVE CAUSE OF THE COMMUNITY DOES NOT DESERVE A LITIGANT-NON GRATA STATUS AND THE COURTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE INFORMED WITH THE SPIRIT AND PHILOSOPHY OF THE PROVISION IN THE COURSE OF INTERPRETATION OF THE EX PRESSION 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 ITA NO.263/BANG/2019 SMT. GURUSHARAN KAUR, BENGALURU PAGE 4 OF 5 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. 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 ITA NO.263/BANG/2019 SMT. GURUSHARAN KAUR, BENGALURU PAGE 5 OF 5 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.