TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 419
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....147 and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The assessee has raised only substantive ground that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not condoning the delay of 52 days in filing of appeal and overlooking genuine reasons and dismissed the appeal on technical grounds. 3. The Brief facts of the case that the assessee company is in the business of Multilevel marketing of numismatics and other products, could not file return of income due to technical problems within due date. The ld. Assessing Officer on verification found the assessee has sales of Rs. 7,07,94,947/- for the financial year 2008-09 as against Rs. 154,95,57,726/- as on 31.03.2008 for the financial year 2007-08. The Asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th credible evidence of operations. The assessee company disclosed in financial statements other income Rs. 29,53,756/- pertaining to dividend from shares and mutual funds exempted u/s.10(34) and 10(35) of the Act and profit on sale of investment of Rs. 52,24,352/-. The assessee has incurred certain indirect expenses for making investments and ld. Assessing Officer relied on the Delhi Tribunal decision of Escorts Ltd vs. ACIT 102 TTJ 522 and disallowed indirect expenses and management expenses estimating at 1% of dividend income as in earlier year assessment 2007-08 in assessee's own case. With these above disallowance the Assessing Officer passed assessment order u/s.143(3) r.ws. 147 on 25.03.2014 with assessed income of Rs. 84,70,705/-. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....condoned''. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the findings of the Assessing Officer and without going into merits as the assessee could not explain circumstances and substantiate the delay of 52 days in condonation petition and ignored the fact that the Managing Director of the Company was under detention by Andhra Pradesh Police for alleged violation of money circulation scheme from 16.02.2014 and released on 02.06.2014. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) observed that the assessee does not have sufficient cause for delay and affidavit filed is not in order as per the law and there is no due diligence of the provisions of the Act and dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning 52 days delay. Aggrieved by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for laundering the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xpression "sufficient cause" will always have relevancy to reasonableness. The actions which can be condoned by the Court should fall within the realm of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. It is neither expected nor can it be a normal conduct of a public servant or a litigant that they would keep the files unmoved, unprocessed for months together on their tables. How the power of condonation of delay is to be exercised, has been explained by the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others- 167 ITR 471 (SC) as under:- ( Pages 472 ). " The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In f act, he runs serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but be....