TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 990
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are arising out of the order u/s 143(3)/271(1)(c) & 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the 'Act') on 16.12.2016, 20.12.2016 & 22.05.2017 framed by ITO (Intl. Txn.), Bhopal(in short Ld. 'A.O). 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- Appeal No.ITA/78/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 On the facts and the circumstances of the case:- 1. That the assessment u/s 143(3) is invalid, without jurisdiction, barred by limitation, illegal and liable to be quashed. (Tax Effect :20,88,985/-) 2. That the Ld, CIT(A) was unjustified in passing an ex-parte order without giving meaningful opportunity to the appellant. (Tax Effect :20,88,985/-) 3. That the Ld CIT(A) was unjustified in not condonin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITA/80/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 On the facts and the circumstances of the case:- 1. That the assessment u/s 154 is invalid, bad in law and deserves to be quashed. (Tax Effect :10,45,950/-) 2. That the IL, CIT(A) was unjustified in passing an ex-parte order without giving meaningful opportunity to the appellant. (Tax Effect : 10,45,950/-) 3. That the Ld CIT(A) was unjustified in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal (Tax Effect : 10,45,950/-) 4. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the order passed u/s 154 where the only reason for passing such order was charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B, which is debtable in nature (Tax Effect 10,45,950/-) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by not condoning the delay in filing the appeals. 5. With the consent of both the parties we first take up Ground No. 2 & 3 commonly raised in all these appeals. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to following submissions; 1. Assessee migrated to Spain in 1986. He did investment in Indore during the year under consideration. 2. Assessment order was served on watchman, who used to reside in the Bungalow of appellant. Watchman gave it to Mr. Pahuja after 15 days and after receiving the order, Shri Pahuja contacted the CA. Shri Narendra Bhandari and handed over the order to him to file the appeal. 3. That after handing over the papers, Mr Pahuja was under the impression that appeal will be filed.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the judgments placed and relied before us. The issue commonly raised by the assessee in Ground No. 2 & 3 of the instant appeals are against the findings of Ld. CIT(A) not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him and dismissing the appeals in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. 9. As regards delay in filing the appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has given reasons in the written submissions which intends to explain that the assessee being a non resident was dependent on his counsel for the legal remedies available in the Act against the additions made by the Ld. A.O. Since the assessee was residing outsid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n a" common sense and pragmatic manner. (iv) 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 vested right in injustice being done because of a non deliberate delay. (v) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by restoring to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. (vi) 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appeal within the period of limitation. It is also worth noticing that delay was also not that huge, which could not have been condoned, without putting the respondents to harm or prejudice. It is the duty of the Court to see, to it that justice should be done between the parties, 3 For the aforesaid reasons the impugned orders passed by Appellate Court, and order passed by the High Court, are hereby set aside and quashed.' As a consequence, the matter stands remitted to the Executing Court for deciding the appellant's application filed under Order 21 Rule 90 of CPC at an early date on merits. Since there are only two contesting parties to the litigation that is to say the appellant and respondent No.5, both would appear before....