TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 333
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 4. The grounds raised by the assessee are identical in all the appeals. The grounds taken in ITA No.620/Chny/2021 read as under: - 1. For that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -NFAC, is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and is opposed to the principles of natural justice. 2. That the appellant company in this grounds of appeal objects to the CPC (TDS) Aaykar Bhawan, sector 3, Vaishali Ghaziabad UP. 201010 action of levying interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act against the assessee company for the quarter one. 3. The Ld. NFAC erred in making addition of Rs. 87,130/- not justified in law. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned NFAC erred in not deciding the issue on merits. 5. Learned NFAC had concluded the appellant Proceeding only bounded toward delay in condonation of appeal, and it deprived assessee company legal rights to appeal. Though Appellant company provided with reason. 6. That the assessee Company is hereby contenting that the CPC had wrongly levied the interest under section 201(1A) of the Act by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder:- 4. Limitation The appeal has not been presented within the stipulated period of thirty days from the date of service of the order sought to be appealed against. It is noticed from Form No, 35 that the appeal has been presented on 10.03.2020, whereas the date of order being appealed against is 10.03.2017. Thus, the appeal in present case has been filed after delay of 1065 days. The appellant has sought condonation of delay in Form 35. The grounds for condonation of delay have been mentioned at Column 15 thereof. The reasons for delay are stated therein as under:- 1) That we are assessed to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Puducherry in the status of company for the Assessment year 2013-14. That we prefer an appeal before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax, Puducherry on 10.03.2020. 2) We would like to state that the appeal is delayed due to the facts that we were not aware about all the notices issued by the Department as our previous auditor did not acknowledge us about these intimations. Further we did not receive all the relevant intimation through email communication. Thereby failed in filing the appeal before the CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DS statements even thereafter. Hence, the claim of the appellant that he was unaware about the intimation made under section 200A, and the TDS default brought out therein, is devoid of any merit. It is trite law that deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant is not a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. The reasons stated by the appellant for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time are found to be bereft of any merits. 5.2 This is a case where an appeal is sought to be preferred after an inordinate delay of 1065 days beyond the time limit prescribed under sub section (2) of section 249 of the Act. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the relevant provisions which read as under:- Form of appeal and limitation 249, (2) The appeal shall be presented within thirty days of the following date, that is to say,- (a) where the appeal is under section 248, the date of payment of the tax, or (b) where the appeal relates to any assessment or penalty, the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty: Provided that, where an application has been made under section 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....* The words "sufficient cause", as appearing in Section 5 of Limitation Act, should receive a liberal construction when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bonafides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the applicant/appellant, in order to advance substantial justice. The words "sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation" should be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. * The decisive factor in condonation of delay is not the length of delay but sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation. The degree of leniency to be shown by a court depends on the nature of application and facts and circumstances of the case. For example, courts view delays in making applications in a pending appeal more leniently than delays in the institution of an appeal. The courts view applications relating to lawyer's lapses more leniently than applications relating to litigant's lapses. * Want of 'diligence' or Inaction can be attributed to an applicant/appellant only when Something, required to be done b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly." 5.7 The Courts in the abovementioned cases, have highlighted upon the importance introducing the concept of "reasonableness" while giving the clause "sufficient cause" a liberal interpretation. In furtherance of the same, the Courts has cautioned regarding the necessity of distinguishing cases where delay is of few days, as against the cases where the delay is inordinate as it might accrue to the prejudice of the rights of the other party. In such cases, where there exists inordinate delay and the same is attributable to the party's inaction and negligence, the Courts have to take a strict approach so as to protect the substantial rights of the parties. 5.8 In the case of Ornate Traders Private Limited Vs I.T.O. (Order dated 29.08.2008 arising out of ITA No 1814 of 2008), the Division bench of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in its have emphasized the need for reasonableness and hence, the actions which can be condoned by the court should fall within the scope of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. The Bombay High Court has further observed that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pproach, 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 its discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the expression "sufficient cause" the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. The expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction." 5.12 From the above decisions it becomes clear that in the case of condonation of delay, where the appeal was filed beyond the limitation of period, the courts are empowered to condone the delay, provided that the appellant can prove his claim of inability to file appeal within the prescribed period. Litigant must be able to demonstrate that there was "sufficient cause" which obstructed his action to file appeal, beyond the prescribed time limit. 5.13 The law of limitation is found upon the maxims "Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium" i.e. litigation must come to an end in the interest of society as a whole, and "vigilantibus non dormientibus Jura subveniunf i.e. the law assists those that are vigilant with their rights, and no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e must not be construed so liberally that it would have the effect of taking away the benefit accruing to the other party in a mechanical manner. Where the Legislature spells out a period of limitation and provides for power to condone the delay as well, there such delay can be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. Now it is a settled principle of law that the provisions relating to specified period of limitation must be applied with their rigour and effective consequences." 5.19 Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, in the case of Sital Prasad Vs CIT (1991) (187 ITR 135) (Allahabad) has upheld the decision of lower appellate authorities, in declining the condonation of delay of about three months, where the condonation was sought on grounds of an accident and fracture, but no medical certificate was filed in support. 5.20 Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of P. K. Ramchandran Vs State of Kerala (AIR 1998 SC 2276) has held that law of limitation may harshly effect a particular party, but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, and the Courts have no power to extend the period of ....