TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 1097
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inagar, Bengaluru, wherein the Additional Commissioner exercising powers under Section 64(1) of the Act has set aside the re-assessment orders relating to the tax periods April 2005 to March 2008 and April 2008 to March 2009 dated 23.09.2009 and 01.06.2010 respectively and remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority for re-doing the re-assessment orders afresh. 2. This appeal is filed with the delay of 1217 days. As such, I.A.No.1/2021 is filed seeking condonation of the said delay of 1217 days in filing the appeal. 3. Learned Senior counsel Sri. T. Suryanarayana appearing for the appellant - assessee submitted that subsequent to the order of remand passed by the Additional Commissioner on 11.01.2018, the appellant was under a bonafid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers set down under the Limitation Act, 1963 could be made applicable to the tax matters. Learned Senior counsel argued that the tax being paid in the matter related to the refund or claim of income tax credit, there is no revenue loss. Hence, condoning the delay of 1217 days in filing the appeal would not prejudice the rights of revenue. In support of his contentions, the following judgments were referred to: (i) N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123]; (ii) Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [Civil Appeal Nos. 6671-6676/2010]; (iii) Karnataka Forest Development Corpn. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (TDS) Circle 11(3), Bangalore [(2011) 196 Taxman 445(Karnataka)]. &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n offered that the appellant was under the bonafide belief that it would satisfy the prescribed authority to allow the input tax credit itself is manifestly misconceived. The appellant accepting the order of the Addl. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has participated before the prescribed authority pursuant to the remand made by the Addl. Commissioner without raising any grouse against the order of the Addl. Commissioner. The prescribed authority having passed the consequential orders and the appellant being aggrieved by the same, has filed the rectification applications unsuccessfully and thereby filed the writ petition challenging the rectification order and the consequential reassessment order. The aforesaid aspects would denote that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is left to the discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. 11. In the case of Karnataka Forest Development Corpn. Ltd. supra, while considering the appeal filed by the Government Company in condoning the delay of 310 days, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court while considering the approach of the Tribunal in not condoning the delay of 310 days has observed that the reason given by the Tribunal for not condoning the delay of 310 days is unsustainable in law. 12. Similarly, in the case of Senior Bhosale Estate, supra, the sufficient cause shown was that the appellants therein had no knowledge of passing of the order on 29....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ivate litigant stands on a better pedestal in taking a decision and filing the appeal before the Court. Merely for the reason that in the appeal filed by the Government delay is condoned, the same yardstick cannot be applied blindly but requires to be examined having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt, delay of 1754 days has been condoned by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Senior Bhosale Estate, supra, but the same is, on considering the satisfactory explanation offered or the cause shown for the delay i.e., it depends on the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no hard and fast rule for condonation of delay. It is the discretionary power vested with the Court, to be exercised judiciously having regar....