2018 (10) TMI 1715

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The assessees have raised the common ground that the CIT(A) ought to have found that the society was seeking deduction of operational income including interest income accrued from the deposit of surplus funds with District Co-operative Banks and Sub Treasuries. 4. These appeals are filed with the delay of 132 days. Originally, the assesses herein filed condonation petitions for condoning the delay of 139 days. However, the delay was only for 132 days. Later, the assessee filed one more affidavit in plain paper and not on non judicial stamp paper, stating the delay was only for 132 days. The condonation petitions filed by the assessees are having the advocate's signa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Acquisition vs. Mst. Katigi (167 ITR 471) held that when substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. In the case of Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil (253 ITR 798) 253 ITR 798, the Supreme Court held that in exercising discretion u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a r....