2016 (5) TMI 413

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not disposing of the appeal on merits. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company which is engaged in the business of real estate had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2006-07 on 08.11.2006 admitting income of Rs. 1,03,23,560. The A.O, during the assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act, disallowed a sum of Rs. 1,15,31,280 under section 40(a)(ia) and assessed the total income at Rs. 2,34,32,042. The assessment order was served on the assessee on 03.11.2008 and thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 25.03.2014 resulting in a delay of 62 months and 24 days. As regards the reasons for the delay, it was explained by the assessee that it had filed a petition under section 154 before the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee. The Ld. CIT(A), however, was not satisfied with the above reasons for condonation of delay and she accordingly dismissed it in limine, against which, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. While reiterating the submissions made by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention to the orders of the lower authorities on the assessee's application under section 154 to impress upon us that the assessee was pursuing other legal remedies under a bonafide belief that they were maintainable and there was no willful neglect on the part of the assessee in pursuing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Further, he has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal. The fact that it was the "State" which was seeking condonation and not a private party was altogether irrelevant. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step- motherly treatment when the "State" is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact, experience 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 appeal) and the inherited bureaucratic metho....