TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1069
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the appeal against the order of the learned CIT-A has been preferred by the counsel whereas the learned counsel was waiting for the instruction from the assessee for filing the appeal. As a result, the delay occurred in filing the appeal by the assessee. In view of above the Ld. AR for the assessee before us submitted that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to unavoidable situation. Therefore the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. 3. On the other hand the ld. DR opposed to condone such inordinate delay. 4. We have perused the records and heard the rival submissions of both the sides. There was a delay of 389 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before us. In the condonation petition it was explained that the delay has occurred due to some confusion between the assessee and the learned counsel for the assessee. Now the controversy arises for our adjudication whether the confusion between the assessee and the learned counsel of the assessee is reasonable and sufficient cause for condoning the delay. In this regard we note that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT reported in 280 ITR 357 has held that: "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is of prime importance and the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Appellate Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the reasons given by the assessee for the delay." 4.1. From the above it is clear that the expression "sufficient cause" should be interpreted to advance substantial justice. Therefore, advancement of substantial justice is the prime factor while considering the reasons for condoning the delay. 4.2. We also note that the assessee in the condonation petition has strongly submitted that the case on merit is in favour of him (the assessee). But there is a technical defect in the appeal since the appeal was not filed within the period of limitation. It is also important to note that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) laid down certain principles for considering the condonation petition for filing the appeal which are reproduced hereunder: (1) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appellate. (2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act? Also whether the ITO was legally empowered to bereave the fundamental rights of the assessee under Art. 22 rw Art. 21 rw Art. 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution? 2. Whether the ITO, being a judicial officer within the meaning of s. 136 rws 120 of the Income Tax Act and corresponding s. 26 of the CPC, was legally empowered to suo-motu conduct an inquiry and investigation upon the appellant without having any jurisdiction to frame charges? 3. Whether the ITO, being a judicial officer, was legally empowered to suo-motu frame and pass the judicial order in absence of any pre-assessment order passed by a designated revenue officer under the law as well as in absence of any dispute regarding income/expense/tax or a related subject matte,' which is prejudicial to the interests of revenue? 4. Whether the ITO was legally correct to detriment the fundamental rights of the appellant by hiding the reasons recorded on or before the judicial trial in accordance with the s. 143? 5. Whether the ITO was legally empowered to arbitrarily disallow the bona fide interest expenses of Rs. 6,62,073 by invoking s. 36(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act by bereaving the fundamental rights as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Whether the ITO has legally empowered and was within its jurisdiction to direct to revenue authority to initiate a penalty proceeding u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act in his judicial order framed u/s. 143(3)? 12. Whether the ITO was legally empowered and was within its jurisdiction to direct to the revenue authority the charge interest on suo-motu incremental tax where no such interest pleaded by the revenue? 13. Whether the ITO was legally empowered to bereave the appellant from his fundamental rights by initiating the judicial trial without having any cause and by breaching his power assigned to him as lower grade of the administrative/judicial system under Art. 53 as well as Art. 124/214 rws 3 and 15 of the CPC, 1908? 14. Whether the CIT(A) was legally empowered to dismiss the appeal merely on the basis of the unscrupulous and non-specific order passed by the non-jurisdictional ITO and failing to call for the records of judicial proceedings and without verifying the jurisdiction of the ITO to make any non-jurisdictional addition/disallowance to the returned income? 15. The Honorable Bench of the ITAT be pleased to accept the above grounds of appeal in the best interest of ju....