TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (7) TMI 46
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of Income-tax (Appeals) rejected the appeal as barred by limitation. The question for consideration is whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal are justified in refusing to condone the delay and rejecting the appeal as barred by limitation. The assessment order dated February 27, 2000, passed by the Income-tax Officer, Ghazipur, for the assessment year 1997-98 was served upon the appellant on March 18, 2000, and, therefore, the limitation for filing the appeal was up to April 17, 2000, while the appeal was filed on September 29, 2000, beyond time by 158 days. The appellant filed application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. In the application, it was explained that since in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the delay appears to be sufficient cause and, accordingly, the delay is liable to be condoned. The law of limitation is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji reported in [1987] 167 ITR 471, hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy reported in [1998] 7 SCC 123 the apex court explained the scope of limitation and condonation of delay, observing as under (headnote): "The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time-limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations is not be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rystallized so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. In Brij Index Singh v. Kanshi Ram, AIR 1917 PC 156, it was observed that the true guide for a court to exercise the discretion under section 5 is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. In Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari, AIR 1969 SC 575, the hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless want of bona fides of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the protection of section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned. In O.P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh reported in AIR 1984 SC....