2022 (3) TMI 472

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t cause in late filing the appeal before ITAT and the delay occurred may kindly be condoned. 3.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR objected to such delay but left the matter on the Bench to consider it as deem fit and proper in the case. 3.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We find that there is national wide Covid 19 Pandemic situation which is beyond the control of the human being. It is also noted that the son of the assessee passed away due to blood cancer and Covid-19. Thus the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, 167 ITR 471 observed as under:- ''The Legislature has conferred power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits. The expression " sufficient cause " in section 5 is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice--that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. A justifiably lib....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case in creating a demand of Rs. 1,54,210/- within the meaning of section 156 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not giving any finding thereon. 5.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 to 3 of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- ''5. Decision:- I have gone through the appellant's submissions. This office vide notice dated 9-08-2021 has specifically asked the appellant to submit copy of order u/s 143(1). Also appellant was specifically asked following questions. ''The appellant has mentioned section 143(1) in column number 2(a) but no orders u/s 143(1) enclosed. Also orders number not mentioned in 2(1a) of the Form 35 Date of service of orders & date of orders u/s 143(1) is wrong. However, though the appellant filed submission on 10th August 2021 but failed to file copy of the order u/s 143(1). Thus appellant has not filed copy of order u/s 143(1) against which the appellant has filed this appeal. Appellant has also not mentioned the order number in the Form No. 35. In the absence of the order u/s 143(1) against which this appeal has been filed, it is impossible to decide the appeal. Appellant failed to submit copy o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....transcends all barriers. Neither the rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. The order of the Court should not be prejudicial to anyone. Rule of stare decisis is adhered for consistency but it is not as inflexible in Administrative Law as in Public Law. Even the law bends before justice. Entire concept of writ jurisdiction exercised by the higher courts is founded on equity and fairness. If the Court finds that the order was passed under a mistake and it would not have exercised the jurisdiction but for the erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice then it cannot on any principle be precluded from rectifying the error. Mistake is accepted as valid reason to recall an order. Difference lies in the nature of mistake and scope of rectification, depending on if it is of fact or law. But the root from which the power flows is the anxiety to avoid injustice. It is either statutory or inherent. The latter is available where the mistake is of the Court. In Administrative Law the scope is still wider. Technicalities apart if the Court is satisfied of the injustice then it is its constitutional and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... department determining the total income at Rs. 9,30,480/- (6,67,550+2,62,930). In that intimation credit of TDS of Rs. 56,122/- and self assessment tax of Rs. 7,230/- claimed by the assessee were granted and thus, the amount payable was determined at Rs. 73,998/-. However, against the above intimation, the assessee filed a rectification request on 08.05.2019 which was rejected by the AO(CPC) vide rectification order u/s 154 dated 15.06.2019 by confirming addition of Rs. 2,62,930/- under the head income from other sources and without allowing credit of TDS of Rs. 56,122/- and self assessment tax of Rs. 7,230/-, the amount payable was determined at Rs. 1,54,208/-. The assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) against the said intimation u/s 154 dated 15.06.2019. The Ld. CIT(A), however, held that the assessee has not filed the copy of the order u/s 143(1) against which the assessee has filed the appeal. The assessee has also not mentioned the order number in Form No.35. In the absence of order u/s 143(1) against which this appeal has been filed, it is impossible to decide the appeal. Thus, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. The Ld. CIT(A) further held that the assessee has m....