TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 204
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd consolidated order is being passed. 2. At the outset, Learned A. R. submitted that in these appeals the issue is regarding late fee charged from the assessee u/s 234E of the Act and learned CIT(A) had dismissed these appeals without expressing any opinion on the merits of the cases as there was a delay of more than one year in all these appeals. It was submitted that the delay had occurred in filing of the appeals as the assessee had moved an application u/s 154 of the Act and it was awaiting the outcome of the application u/s 154. It was submitted that the order u/s 154 was passed on 13/06/2017 and 14/06/2017 and the appeals before learned CIT(A) were filed on 03/07/2017. In this respect Learned A. R. filed a chart showing therein the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o 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. 7. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji reported in [1987] 167 ITR 471, hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows (page 472) : "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 disposing 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 justice-that being the lifepurpose of the existence of the institution of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....echnical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." 8. 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 because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to exercise the discretion under section 5 is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. 13. 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. 14. In O. P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh reported in AIR 1984 SC 1744, the the hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, it would be a ground to condone the delay. 15. In State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani reported in AIR 1996 SC 1623, hon'bl....