TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 333
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 issuing intimation of u/s. 200A of the Act, thereby being held illegal and not tenable in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nted 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 CIT (Appeals) against the intimation order passed by the CPC TDS u/s 200A. 3) That we had no intention to jeopardize the interest of the Revenue by delaying the filing of the appeal. 4) We submit that the delay in filing the appeal is not willful. We pray tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und 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 146 for reopening an assessment, the period from the date on which the application is made to the date on which the order passed on the application is served on the assessee shall be excluded: Provided further that where an application has been made under sub-section (1) 'of section 270AA, the period beginning from the date on which the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion" 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 by him, is not done. When nothing is required to be done, courts do not expect the applicant/appellant to be diligent. Where an appeal is admitted by the High Court and is not expected to be listed for final hearing for a few years, an appellant is not expected to visit the court regularly to ascertain the current position but await information from his counsel about the listing of the appeal. 5.5 To quo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es 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 while Section 5 of the Limitation Act is being interpreted liberally, it cannot be so liberally that it is without any |U:iiification, since condonation of delay in a mechanical or routing mannlllii/ill jeopardize the legislative intent behind Section 5. 5.9 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors., (AIR 2007 SC 1330) held that the High Courts, while exercising their discretionary powers under Article 226....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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 not those that sleep thereupon. The law of limitation in India identifies the need for limiting litigation by striking a balance between the interests of the state and the litigant. 5.14 The Single Judge bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction in Kathiravan Pipes Pvt. Ltd., Vs CESTAT, (2007) (5 SIR 9) (Mad.) has observed that the period of limitation prescribed is not for destruction of a statutory right but only to give finality without protracting the matter en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 limitation on equitable grounds. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lachhman Das Arora Vs Ganeshi Lal (1999) (8 SCC 532). 5.21 Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Hindustan Coca- Cola Marketing (P) Ltd. Vs M/s I. P. Arts Society (RFA No 333/2011 dated 06.07.2011) (Delhi) has held that that total negligence and inaction on part of the party cannot be condoned, as the issue of condonation of delay is case and facts specific. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the position of ....