TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 1072
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee for hearing. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- u/s 271B imposed by the ld AO. 3. The assessee craves your indulgence to add amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing." 5. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that the assessee has filed the present appeal on 09/12/2020 against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) relating to A.Y. 2013-14 alongwith an application seeking condonation of delay. It was submitted that the assessee wishes to resolve this matter and has since moved an application under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The A.O. has enquired about the status of the condonation of delay application filed before the Tribunal in order for him to take appropriate action under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and it was therefore requested to consider the assessee's condonation application. 6. In its condonation application, the assessee has submitted as under: "The assessee is an individual. The penalty u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act 1961 was imposed by the learned AO vide order dated 26.06.2018. The assesssee prefer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der of Commissioner, assessee preferred appeal before Tribunal-Tribunal restored matter back to file of AO for Assessment Year 1993-94-AO passed order allowing claim under that section of the I.T. Act, 1961-Assessee preferred rectification application to AO to rectify his order for Assessment Year 1994-95 and Assessment Year 1996-97-Rectification application was rejected by AO-CIT(A) upheld order of AO-Assessee filed application for condonation of delay in filling appeal against order of CIT(A)-Tribunal held that assessee simply put responsibility for delay on Revenue-Tribunal dismissed two appeals filed by assessee holding that same as barred by limitation-Tribunal held that delay of 2984 days in filling appeal could not be condoned-Held, Supreme Court in case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and others held that legal advice tendered by a professional and litigant acting upon it one way or other could be sufficient cause to seek condonation of delay and coupled with other circumstances and factors for applying liberal principles and then said delay can be condoned-None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless the Court of law or the Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xecuted in favour of the highest bidder. The Appellant then filed an appeal before the District Judge which was barred by limitation by a couple of months. This appeal was dismissed on the ground that there was not sufficient ground for condonation of delay. Onmistaken advice, the Appellant filed a second appeal to the High Court which was thereafter treated by the Court as a revision application. This was also dismissed. The Appellant then filed a review petition which was also dismissed. Against that the Appellant filed a SLP which was also delayed. The delay in filing the SLP was condoned and the question before the Supreme Court was whether the District Judge was justified in dismissing the first appeal on the ground of delay. HELD allowing the appeal: (a) While considering an application for condonation of delay no strait-jacket formula is prescribed to come to the conclusion if sufficient and good grounds have been made out or not. Each case has to be weighed from its facts and the circumstances in which the party acts and behaves. From the conduct, behaviour and attitude of the appellant it cannot be said that it had been absolutely callous and negligent in prosecut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....must be made between a case where there is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. In the former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other party will be a relevant factor so the case call for more cautious approach but in the later case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard. The court has to exercise the discretion of the facts of each keeping in mind that in construing the expression 'sufficient cause', the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. (ix) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693, by referring various to earlier decisions of Superior Courts and held the following principal must be kept in mind while considering the application for condonation of delay; (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. (ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their prop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....table latitude." In the circumstances it is submitted that it was because of the bonafide mistake on the part of the assessee that he has no knowledge about the completion of the CIT(A)'s order ex-parte and he did not inquire about the service of judgment. The appeal could not be filed in time. It is submitted that for something which happened due to inadvertence and beyond the control. Hence it is the prayer of the assessee as well as of the counsel that the Hon'ble Bench may kindly condone the delay and admit the appeal." 7. It was submitted by the ld AR that there was no malafide or deliberate delay in filing the present appeal and in the interest of substantial justice, the delay in filing the present appeal may be condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication. It was further submitted that there is no prejudice which will be caused to the department as the assessee has already moved an application for settlement of present dispute and payment of taxes. In support, reliance was placed on the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in case of HL Malhotra & Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Circle-12, New Delhi (ITA No. 211/2020 & CM Appeals 32045-32047/2020 dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Vivad se Vishwas Scheme by the PCIT, Ajmer. However, as soon as assessee came to know of subsequent penalty order being passed against it, it consulted its Counsel and basis his advice, the present appeal has been filed though with a delay of 515 days. 10. In case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs MST Katiji (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the expression 'Sufficient Cause' employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner to sub-serves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. It was further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that such liberal approach is adopted on one of the principles that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Another principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice dese....