TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1660
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts and circumstances of the case, (b) opposed to Principles of natural justice and legitimate expectation Evidence on record and there exists no satisfaction for employing 153C (c) Fair procedure in regard to asst and non furnishing of materials in regard to Additions and against due process of law and absence of incriminatory materials. 2. The learned CIT (A) fundamentally failed to appreciate that the AC lacks jurisdiction since the conditions for invoking section 144 is not satisfied and hence the whole assessment is nullity in law. 3. The learned CIT(A) fundamentally failed to appreciate that the ingredients to invoke section 144 are singularly absent since the appellant has replied to the notice issued by the learned AC and without prejudice the assessing officer had not issued material notice stating the basis of his additions sought to be made and justification for making additions and the materials he sought to base his reasons and miserably failed to discharge onus. 4. The order of the AO is full of clairvoyance of reasoning coupled with suspicion, surmises and conjectures and such assessment is ab-initio void and nullity ( see ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ote furnished by the Finance Ministry, in which it is stated that "the Government is anxious to discharge its moral obligation, waiving legal impediments ". In the note, it has been further stated that: "under the administrative instructions the Commissioners are required to refer to the Government cases of over-assessments occurring due to mistakes of law or fact relating to the computation of total income or tax thereon which cannot normally be rectified due to the operation of the law of limitation. In all suitable cases the Government does waive the limitation and refunds are invariably allowed" Similarly the apex court in the case of Commissioner land Acquisition Ms Katiji 167 ITR 471SC as under:- The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits ". The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the Legislature 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 in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the" State "is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact, experience shows that on account of an impersonal machinery (no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file-pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant non grata status. The courts, therefore, have to be informed of the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression" sufficient cause ". So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in view to do even-handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits. In the light of the facts and circumstances The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pected to do so. Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal. The fact that it was the " State " which was seeking condonation and not a private party was altogether irrelevant. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the" State" is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact, experience shows that on account of an impersonal machinery (no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file-pushing, and passing-on-thebuck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant non grata status. The courts, therefore, have to be informed of the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the cours....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of India [2001] 252 ITR 471 (Delhi), it is explained that reasonable cause can be reasonably said to be a cause which prevents a man of average intelligence and ordinary prudence, acting under normal circumstances, without negligence or inaction or want of bona fides. In Woodward Governor India P. Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 253 ITR 745 (Delhi); [2001] 118 Taxman 433, it is held that "reasonable cause" as applied to human action is that which would constrain a person of average intelligence and ordinary prudence. It can be described as a probable cause. It means an honest belief founded upon reasonable grounds, of the existence of a state of circumstances, which, assuming them to be true, would reasonably lead any ordinarily prudent and cautious man, placed in the position of the person concerned, to come to the conclusion that the same was the right thing to do. Similarly, in Kalakrithi v. ITO [2002] 253 ITR 754 (Mad), this court had an occasion to consider the words "reasonable cause" contained in section 273B of the Act, which reads as follows (headnote): "The words 'reasonable cause' in section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must necessarily have a relatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egal wit: "Law and equity are two things which God hath joined, but which Man has put as under ". We have to examine the merits of the case in the light of the facts Merely because an order has been passed by the officer and has not been appealed against, it does not become legal and final if otherwise it is void ; for instance, if there is a flagrant violation of natural justice Any legal system, especially one evolving in a developing country, may permit judges to play a creative role and innovate to ensure justice It is humbly submitted that two stark facts generate some considerations of conscience in favour of the assessee. The Supreme court in the case of MIs Dehri Light Railway Company Ltd reported in 1992 2 Scc 598 tellingly observed as under:- The real test is "not physical running of time" Where the circumstances." The conduct exits, the illegality which is manifest cannot be sustained on the ground of laches. It is humbly submitted that on the facts of the case there exists manifest illegality when the tax is sought to be collected contrary to constitution mandate of Aricle 265 which clearly mandates that no tax shall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ular issued by the Central Board of Revenue, of the kind of circular mentioned therein, would be binding on all officers and persons employed in the execution of the IT Act. The second manifest illegality is that the assumption of penalty proceedings is illegal sine the fundamental ground of satisfaction to initiate the proceedings is singularly absence in view of protective asst. made in the appellant's case. The third manifest illegality is that the impugned demand is contrary to VDIS Scheme and also offending the principles of "legitimate expectation" of the Citizen that the Government would honour its promises made in pursuance of VDIS Declaration on waiver of entire penalty consequent to acceptance of VDJS declaration. Length of delay is not a matter of concern" The Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan reported in 1987 (1) SCC page 123 observed as follows; (copy Para 13. Of the judgment) The same view was also expressed in Srinivasa Charities by the Madras High Court. Hence it is settled law that authorities can, if at all, can only impose cost, and cannot dismissal of the appeal. To conclude, it is apt to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order of ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). On appeal, Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of ld. Assessing Officer. Against the order of Ld.CIT(A), now the Assessee is in appeal before us. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities impugned in these appeals. As far as the delay in filing these appeals by 744 days against the common appellate order of the CIT(A), viz. ITA No. 76 to 81/09-10 dated 19.02.2015 is concerned, one has to admit that the delay involved is inordinate and not marginal. 6.1 It is settled position of law that it is only marginal delays that can be condoned, and not inordinate delays running into several years. We may at this juncture, refer to the Third Member decision of Tribunal (Chennai) in the case of Jt. CIT v/s. Tractors & Farms Ltd. ( 104 ITD 149)-TM, wherein drawing out a distinction between normal delay and inordinate delay, it has been observed, vide head-note on page 150 of the Reports (104 ITD) as follows- "A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former....