TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 277
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring of this appeal, it was observed by the bench that there is delay of 124 days in filling of the instant appeal, which was explained by the assessee by submitting that Mr Karanbir Singh Sethi (Ld. Chartered Accountant) though prepared the appeal to be filed before ITAT, Amritsar and handed over the appeal papers to his assistant for deposit of Appeal fee and sending the same to Amritsar after getting signed from the assessee, however it was later found that the Assistant of him failed to deposit the Appeal fee and also failed to file the appeal in the registry of the ITAT, Amritsar and therefore due to such circumstances, the appeal got delayed in filling before the ITAT, Amritsar, however the same was filed belatedly through the local S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. The Apex Court further held that 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. 2.4 The Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 2008 (228) ELT 162, the Apex Court, while condoning the delay of 883 days in filing an application for setting aside t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first Court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior Court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior Court to come to its own finding even untrammelled by the conclusion of the lower Court." A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ategy, the Court must show utmost consideration of such litigant. The Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan (supra), clearly held that the length of delay is immaterial, it is the acceptability of the explanation and that is the only criteria for condoning the delay. The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate disputes between the parties and to advance substantial justice. It is well settled that bonafide lis cannot be thrown out on the basis of legal technicalities and it is utmost duty of the Courts to adjudicate the same. As it is well settled that the period of delay is not relevant for considering the application for condonation of delay. What is required to be seen as to whether a party seeking condonation of delay has made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thoughtful consideration to the order impugned herein. The Appellant most of the times, did not bother itself on one or other reason(s) to appear and co-ordinate with appellate proceedings even after availing various opportunities. Although the instant appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed in order to give effect to the principle that law does not assist the person who is inactive and sleeps over his rights by allowing them when challenged or disputed to remain dormant, without asserting them in a court of law. The, principle which forms the basis of this rule is expressed in the maxim vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt (Law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights), but even a vigilan....