TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 285
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T (Appeals)-I, Bhubaneswar purported to have been passed referring to the Order framed U/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the ACIT, (TDS), Bhubaneswar instituted on 16.02.2010 & Order was passed on 04/10/2011, was received by the REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION, BHUBANESWAR on dt.07/10/2011. 2. That if anybody aggrieved with such order, has to prefer an appeal within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order and as such the appeal was to be filed on or before Dated 06/12/2011. 3. That delay in filing the appeal is because of a genuine belief of the applicability of provisions of Rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules 1962 regarding the perquisite value of the accommodation provided by the appellant to its employees considering the status of the appellant at par with that of a Government Department, which was neither accepted by the Assessing Officer, ACIT, (TDS), Bhubaneswar nor accepted by the CIT (Appeals)-I, Bhubaneswar & Order was passed on 18/01/2010 by the Assessing Officer, ACIT, (TDS), Bhubaneswar, being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer ACIT (TDS) filed an appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer before the Commissione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its employees & The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Mysore, interpreting the facts of the case by applying the intelligible differentia provided by the law in this regard, has construed the status of the appellant as a Central Government Organization for the purpose of valuation of perquisites and not as an autonomous body as stated by the ITO(TDS]. Accordingly, the aforesaid primary issue contested in the Appeal was allowed vide order dated 31/08/2017. Further when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, 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. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. Further rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties & if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown discretion is given to the Court to condone delay and admit the appeal. This discretion has been deliberately conferred on the Court in order that j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ack By the Assessee Through A/R Date : 07/12/2018 CA CHANDRA SEKHAR MOHANTY. (A/R of the Assessee) 3. Further the contents of affidavit filed by the assessee in this regard read as under :- Before the Notary Public, Cuttack AFFIDAVIT FOR THE CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, ODISHA. In the matter of : REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION, BHUBANESWAR. Assessment Year : Asst Year-2009-10 Affidavit if Sri Pradip Kumar Rai aged about 48 (forty eight) years, son of Shri Narsingh Ra<$>, Permanent R/o:- Madhopur Dharang, Dist:- Ajomgarh, State-Utter Pradesh, At present R/o: Qtr No-3R-17|RIE Campus, Sachivalaya Marg, P.s.:- Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751022, section officer of REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION, BHUBANESWAR I, the deponent abovenamed do hereby solemnly affirm and State on oath as under : 1. That the deponent is the section officer to Sri Prakash Chandra Agarwal, Principal of REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION, BHUBANESWAR, in the abovenoted case and as such he is well acquainted with the facts deposed to below. 2. That, the order of the C1T (Appeals)-l,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n filling the present appeal. Since the appellant was not aware about the decision rendered by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mysore which was based on decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appeal could not be filed earlier. The judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court being binding on everybody, the technicalities like delay in preferring the appeal should not stand on the way to implement the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence the delay in preferring the appeal is bonafide and thus may kindly be condoned. 9. That there has been no negligence on the part of the appellants in filing the present appeal. Whatever delay has occurred, it has occurred on account of ignorance of law & in absence of a good legal advice by a counsel. 10. That the facts stated above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I, the deponent above named do hereby declare that the contents of this affidavit are true to my personal knowledge; and are based on record and those of Paragraph No. 7 of the affidavit are based on information received; and those of Paragraph Nos. 8 & 9 of this affidavit are based on legal advice, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee as a Central Government Organization for the purpose of valuation of perquisites and not as an autonomous body. Now, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal with the above observations of the CIT(A), Mysore after a lapse of 2554 days. It is also a fact that the assessee-institute is a constituent unit of National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), New Delhi. It is the responsibility of the concerned officer to deduct TDS from the perquisite value of rent free accommodation given to its employees in terms of Rule 3 of I.T.Rules, 1962, without waiting for the decision of CIT(A), Mysore which is not the jurisdiction of the present assessee. We are of the opinion that the grounds taken by the assessee for condonation of delay is not sufficient. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) By Lrs. Vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project & Another, in Civil Appeal Nos.6414-6417 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.21011-21014 of 2007), order dated 3th November, 2008, has held that, "Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uiry as to whether the averments made in the application reveal sufficient cause to condone the delay. That a party taking a false stand to get rid of the bar of limitation should not be encouraged to get any premium on the falsehood on his part by condoning delay. [See: (1993)1SCC 572]. 12. Whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion? The High Court in its order having noticed the relevant fact in categorical terms held that there was no substance in the plea that it was unaware about the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court since it was a party before the Reference Court and contested the matter. The High Court also found that the decision of the Joint Secretary to acquiesce was communicated to the beneficiary of the acquisition and therefore, its plea about the unawareness of the award and decision taken by the Government cannot be accepted. The High Court in its order emphatically rejected the ground raised by the respondent in that regard. In such view of the matter can it be said that the High Court properly exercised its jurisdiction? It is true that the power to condone the delay rests with the court in which the application was fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04, the respondent beneficiary addressed a letter to the Collector requesting him to direct the Land Acquisition Officer to prefer an appeal. This correspondence continued up to 21.06.2004. Thereafter, the application along with the appeal seeking condonation of delay was filed on 25th February, 2005. The applicant having set the machinery in motion cannot abandon it to resume it after number of years because the authority with whom it had entered into correspondence did not heed to its request to file appeals. The question is : Can the respondent/applicant in this case take advantage of its negligence, after lapse of number of years, of the decision of Government? It knew the exact grounds on which appeals could have been preferred. The law will presume that it knew of its right to file appeal against the award. Everybody is presumed to know law. It was its duty to prefer appeals before the court for consideration which it did not. There is no explanation forthcoming in this regard. The evidence on record suggest neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time." 19. In Ramlal and others vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [ AIR 1962 SC 361], this court held that: "in construing Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to right in favour of the decree holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties and this legal right which has accrued to the decree holder by lapse of time should not be light heartedly disturbed. The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause of excusing delay is shown discretion is given to the court to condone the delay and admit the appeal. `It is further necessary to emphasis that even if the sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....statutes of peace'. An unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation creates insecurity and uncertainty; some kind of limitation is essential for public order. This court in Rajender Singh and others vs. Santa Singh and others [(1973) 2 SCC 705] has observed : "the object of law of Limitation is to prevent disturbance and deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence or laches". In Motichand vs. Munshi [(1969) 2 SCR 824], this court observed that this principle is based on the maxim "interest republicae ut sit finis litum, that is, the interest of the State requires that there should be end to litigation but at the same time law of Limitation are a means to ensuring private justice suppressing fraud and perjury, quickening diligence and preventing oppression. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a life span for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in....