AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 1066
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lly explained that it was a period of Corona Pandemic-19 (COVID-19) continued for a long time and it has disturbed the whole world not only the Individual but also for School even the cognizance have been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court who has suo motto allowed the extension of time for submitting the appeal, revision, reference all things. The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred and acted illegally in not taking into account this aspect of fact. 3. Because the Computation of Income made by the CPC Bangalore without taking into the account the expenditure to achieve the object is illegal and against the principle of Income Tax. The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred and acted illegally in not taking into account this aspect of Fact. 4. Because the Computation of Income is bad both in facts and in law and not maintainable." 3. Ground no. 1 and 2 are regarding declining of condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and consequently the same was dismissed as barred by limitation in limine. The assessee is a trust running educational institutions namely Saraswati Devi Mahavidyala at Kushi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the appeal. The CIT(A) has held that the assessee failed to exercise its right to file appeal within the period of limitation provided under section 249(2) and it is a clear case of laches on the part of the assessee and is directly the result of deliberate inaction on the part of the assessee. 4. Before the Tribunal, the learned AR of the assessee has reiterated the explanation as explained before the CIT(A) for delay in filing the appeal. He has further submitted that since the CPC has assessed the entire gross receipt as income of the assessee without allowing the expenditure therefore, the impugned order under section 143(1) is illegal and highly arbitrary also suffering an apparent mistake from record for not assessing the correct income of the assessee. The learned AR has contended that initially the assessee was advised to file the rectification petition under section 154 of the Income Tax Act and time limit for filing the petition was upto March, 2020 however, in the meantime, there was a Covid-19 pandemic outbreak and a complete lockdown from 22nd March, 2020 which led to the delay in filing the application before CIT(A). He has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e till outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic. The assessee took the plea that after the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, the school and college of the assessee were closed and staffs were directed not to come, the classes were also discontinued and only some virtual classes were conducted. Thus the assessee has explained that in these circumstances, the assessee could not take the steps for filing the appeal before the CIT(A) within the period of limitation. The CIT(A) after considering the plea for condonation of delay has given its finding in para 4 to 4.2.2 as under:- "4. Findings and Decision: 4.1 In the instant appeal, the date of order u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act was 27.03.2017 and appeal has been filed on 27.07.2022. The appellant while filing Form No.35 has mentioned the grounds for condonation of delay. although there was delay in filing appeal of approximately 1950 days. However, during the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted a petition dated 27.07.2022 along with Form No.35 for condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. The relevant extract of the grounds for condonation of delay as submitted by the appellant is reproduced as under:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ximately 1950 days of delay." 4.3. The intimation u/s.143(1) of the I.T. Act dated 27.03.2017 has been sent from CPC by Registered email id. The intimation u/s 143(1) was served upon the appellant on 27.03.2017. The appellant was supposed to file an appeal against this order on or before 27.04.2017. The claim of the appellant that it was waiting for the rectification application is untenable and unacceptable. Rectification is only possible on a mistake apparent from record. The mistake apparent from record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning of points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. Thus the ground of the appellant that it did not file appeal as it was waiting for the outcome of its rectification application is misplaced and lacks merit. The appellant has also mentioned the reasons of COVID outbreak during the period because of which it could not file the appeal in time. However, it is pertinent to note that the COVID outbreak and the lock down started only in the month of March, 2020, whereas the appellant was supposed to file the appeal on or before 27.04.2017. Therefore, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aged in Section 5 of Limitation Act. Hence, the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay, the onus of proving which lies on the appellant/applicant as clearly laid down in the judicial pronouncements by the Highest Courts of Law. 4.7. In the case of Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom, Perinadu Village v. Bhargavi Amma (Dead) by LRS, (2008)8 SCC 321, the Hon'ble SC had enunciated certain principles in which are applicable while considering applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 which may be summarized as follows: * 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 bona fides, 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 circu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly." 4.10 The Courts in the abovementioned cases, 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the case of Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil v Shantaram Baburao Patil Smt. Vedabai [2002] 122 Taxman 114 (SC) "In exercising discretion u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone delay for sufficient cause in not preferring an appeal or other application within the period prescribed, courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. 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 consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor and calls for a more cautious approach, 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." 4.15 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egislative scheme and Intention behind the concerned provision otiose as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. v. M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited 2020[36] G.S.T.L. 305. 4.21 For these reasons, the delay of approximately 1950 days in filing of appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s.249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the appellant's failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation u/s.249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.s. 5 of Limitation Act and hence the appeal sought to be instituted belatedly is hereby rejected. 4.22 In the result, as delay in filing of appeal is not condoned, the appeal is not admitted and is rejected accordingly." 7. There is no dispute that the order under section 143(1) passed by CPC is highly unreasonable and very harsh for the assessee as the total gross receipts of the assessee was assessed to tax being a total income of the assessee without allowing the deduction of various expenditures which were part of the return of income. Thus, there is an apparent mistake from the order of CP....