TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 1037
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay in the form of affidavit. In the affidavit, the assessee has explained the reasons for the delay. The relevant part of the affidavit reads as under: " a) The impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was received by me on23.03.2019. I was to hand over the same to the concerned Tax Practitioner for filing an appeal against the same before Hon'ble ITAT. However, inadvertently, I forgot to pass on such order to the said Tax Practitioner. b) I say and submit that since I am not well read and I was unable to comprehend the contents of the order, for which it took a reasonable time. Thereafter, due to my advanced age, it took some time for me to gather records and consult practitioners of Charted Accountancy and law. c) However, upon inquiry by the concerned Tax Practitioner eventually, I realized that the impugned order was not forwarded for filing an appeal before Your Honors. As soon as I, came across such facts, immediately forwarded the impugned order to the concerned Tax Practitioner who, in turn, forwarded the same to the concerned Advocate with due diligence for filing of Appeal before Your Honors. Thereafter, conc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rough the record carefully. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then, Hon'ble Court were unanimous in their conclusion that this expression is to be used liberally. We may make reference to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme court from the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, 1987 AIR 1353: "1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. 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. 3. "Every day's delay must be e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt 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 Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Add: Undisclosed amount of short term capital gain Rs. 2,61,93,070/- Total Assessed Income Rs. 3,27,36,465/- 9. Against these orders of the ld.AO, the assessee went in appeal before the ld.first appellate authority, but could not succeed. Assessee further went in appeals before the Tribunal in IT(SS)A.No.112 to 116/Ahd/2015 for the Asstt.Years 2005-06 to 2009-10. The Tribunal set aside orders of the Revenue authorities and remitted the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo appellate proceedings which, as of now are pending for final adjudication. 10. During the pendency of de novo appellate proceedings, the ld.AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and after hearing the assessee imposed penalty of Rs. 1,49,038/- for the Asstt.Year 2005-06 , Rs. 30,49,383 for the Asstt.Year 2006-07, and Rs. 90,29,680/- for the Asstt.Year 2009-10, which were confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) in appeal. The same are now under challenge before the Tribunal. 11. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that the assessee had filed appeals against orders of the ld.CIT(A) in quantum matters. The Tribunal has set aside orders of the CIT(A) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as assured us that, on the matter being remitted to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication de novo, he will ensure strict compliance with the notice of hearing and that the remanded proceedings are expeditiously completed. 3. In view of these discussions and bearing in mind entirety of the case, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication de novo, after reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, by way of speaking order and in accordance with the law. The assessee is also directed to ensure proper compliance with the notice of hearing by the learned CIT(A), failing which the C1T(A) will be at liberty to dispose of the matter on the basis of the material on record." 7. The Tribunal has set aside ex parte orders of the ld.CIT(A) on quantum appeals, and remitted these issues for re-adjudication to the file of the CIT(A) afresh. Thus, the determination of income for the purpose of taxation is yet to be finalized. In other words, additions on account of assessment under section 153A is required to be made in the hands of the assessee or not, is sub judiced before the CIT(A). In this background, it is pertinent to n....