AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 508
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l before the Learned ITAT, Amritsar bench, Amritsar on account of the following reasons:- (i) That the order of worthy CIT(A) dated 14/6/2013 was not received by me or any authorized person of the Company. (ii) That we never knew the fact that the order has been passed by the Learned CIT(A) on 14/6/2013. It was only in the penalty proceedings it came to know that the appeal of the assessee was decided and on receipt of the information the appellant made a request before the Ld CIT(A) on 05/03/2014 for supply of the copy of order of Ld CIT(A). (iii) That the copy of the order of worthy CIT(A) was received on 04/03/2015 along-with a letter stating that the copy of the order was received by the counsel who appeared before the Ld CIT(A) but the counsel never informed us about the disposal of the appeal as well as about the order of the worthy CIT(A). (iv) That the delay took place in filing the appeal before the Learned Bench and was reasonable and sufficient cause for filing the belated appeal. As there such, it is prayed that the delay may kindly be condoned under these circumstances." 3. Before Ld CIT(A), the assessee was represented by an Advocate named Shri J.K. Gupt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tant case or not? b) Whether the assessee can, in the facts and circumstances of the case, be said to have satisfied the Court that it was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring, the appeal under reference within the prescribed time, which is the only criteria 1aid down by the clear enunciation of sections 3 & 5 of the Limitation AI 963? 2. Whether the assessee's conduct, vital in condoning the delay, be regarded as bona fide or not in the given facts and circumstances of the case? 3. Whether the decision on merits, requiring delving into the facts of the case, should influence the decision of the Court in deciding the matter of limitation in-as-much as jurisdiction to adjudicate on merits could only follow the admission of the appeal, with it being otherwise trite law that the Courts have no power to extend the limitation, where otherwise not liable to be condoned; the decision on merits being rendered only in view of the difference between the members constituting the Bench?" 7. The Ld Judicial Member did not agree with the questions framed by Ld Accountant Member and accordingly the Ld Judicial Member has framed following questions:- "(i) Whether communicati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) The Ld A.R submitted that the appellate order passed by Ld CIT(A) was served upon the earlier Counsel and he has failed to communicate/forward the same to the assessee. Hence the assessee was not aware of the fact of passing of order by Ld CIT(A). The assessee came to know about the appellate order only when the assessing officer started penalty proceedings. Immediately the assessee applied for a copy of the order, but the same was supplied after one year from the date of application. Immediately after the receipt of the order, the assessee has preferred the present appeal. He submitted that the assessee should not be found fault with the delay, since the non-communication of the order by the earlier counsel and the delay in furnishing the copy of order by Ld CIT(A) are beyond the control of the assessee. Accordingly he submitted that there was sufficient cause for the assessee in preferring the appeal belatedly. He further submitted that, if the time of limitation is computed from the date of service of order to the earlier counsel, the same would result in delay. However, if the time limit is computed from the date of supply of the order to the assessee, the same is within th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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, for that is the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. The learned Judges emphasized on adoption of a liberal approach while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay as ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late and refusal to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and the cause of justice being defeated. It was stressed that there should not be a pedantic approach but the doctrine that is to be kept in mind is that the matter has to be dealt with in a rational commonsense pragmatic manner and cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred over the technical considerations. It was also ruled that there is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately or on account of culpable negligence and that the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice on technical grounds as it is the duty of the cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. Thereafter, the learned Judges proceeded to state that this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate. (d) In Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh and Others (2010) (6 SCC 786), it has been held that while considering an application for condonation of delay no straitjacket formula is prescribed to come to the conclusion if sufficient and good grounds have been made out or not. It has been further stated therein that each case has to be weighed from its facts and the circumstances in which the party acts and behaves." 13. The principles that emanate from the above said decisions are that, in the matter of condonation of delay in filing appeals beyond the limitation period, the courts are empowered to condone the delay, provided the litigant is able to demonstrate that there was "sufficient cause" in preferring appeal beyond the lim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....self is always a sufficient ground. It is always a question whether the mistake was bonafide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose such as laches on the part of the litigant or an attempt to save limitation in an underhand way........." Though the above said observations were made in the context of the wrong advice given by the Counsel, I am of the view that the above said proposition can also be conveniently extended to the lapse of the counsel in not communicating the appellate to the assessee on right time. When an assessee authorizes a counsel to appear on his behalf, such authorization is given by placing faith on the legal expertise of the Counsel and also with the hope that the counsel shall take care of the interest of the assessee. Hence, when there is a lapse on the part of the legal counsel, in my view, the assessee should not be found fault with, unless it is shown that the blame put on the counsel with malafide intentions in order to cover up the mistake/lapse on the part of the assessee. In the instant case, it is the contention of the Ld D.R that the explanation of the assessee is not supported by any evidence. In my view, the submission of the Ld A.R....