TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1534
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s.271 was filed with a delay of 775 days, though these appeals ought to have been filed within thirty days from the receipt of the penalty orders. The assessee filed condonation petition before CIT(A) explaining the reasons for delay with the assessee was a nonresident Indian and he was represented by GPA-holder Smt.Shobha Suresh Shet, the assessee through his mother Smt.Shobha Suresh Shet has engaged professional services of a tax consultant and furnished all the details to the said authorized representative. However, he failed to take any steps towards proper representation of the assessee before the AO or the CIT(A) and hence the assessee was failed to file appeal before the CIT(A) within the time. The assessee, when the notice for hearing came for the AY.2017-18 came and therefore assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 27-12-2019, after making various additions. For this assessment year, assessee went for an advice of a tax consultant and he asked for earlier years' records by that time, assessee came to know about the lapse on the part of the earlier counsel and advised to the present counsel that assessee filed the appeals against penalty orders before the CIT(A).....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laim to have vested right for injustice being done because of non deliberate delay. Moreover, no counter-affidavit was filed by the Revenue denying the reasons advanced by the assessees. It is not the case of the Revenue that the appeals were filed deliberately with delay. Therefore, we have to prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. As observed by Apex Court, if the application of the assessee for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalise injustice on technical ground when the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. Therefore, this Tribunal is bound to remove the injustice by condoning the delay on technicalities. If the delay is not condoned, it would amount to legalising an illegal order which would result in unjust enrichment on the part of the State by retaining the tax relatable thereto. Under the scheme of Constitution, the Government cannot retain even a single pie of the individual citizen as tax, when it is not authorised by an authority of law. Therefore, if we refuse to condone the delay, that would amount to legalise an illegal and unconstitutional order passed by the lower authority. Therefore,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... similar view was taken by the Madras High Court in the case of Venkatadri Traders Ltd. v. CIT (2001) 168 CTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad). 3.4. The Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) (277 ITR 1) has condoned the delay of 180 days when the appeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment of the Apex Court. Furthermore, the Revenue has not filed any counter-affidavit opposing the application of the assessee for condonation of delay. The Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Sandhya Rani Sarkar vs. Smt. Sudha Rani Debi (AIR 1978 SC 537) held that non-filing of affidavit in opposition to an application for condonation of delay may be a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In this case, the Revenue has not filed any counter-affidavit opposing the applications of the assessees, therefore, as held by the Apex Court, there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court observed that when the delay was of short duration, a liberal view should be taken. "It does not mean that when the delay was for longer period, the delay should not be condoned even though there was sufficient cause. The Apex Court did not s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it is the duty of the court to remove injustice. In the said case the Division Bench observed that the State which represents the collective cause of the community does not deserve a litigant-non grata status and the courts are required to be informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of interpretation of the expression "sufficient cause". (b) In G. Ramegowda, Major and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore (1988)(2 SCC 142), Venkatachaliah, J. (as his Lordship then was), speaking for the Court, has opined thus: "The contours of the area of discretion of the courts in the matter of condonation of delays in filing appeals are set out in a number of pronouncements of this Court. See : Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfield Ltd.(1962)(2 SCR 762); Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari(1969)(1 SCR 1006); Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nirmala Devi(1979)(3 SCR 694); Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan(1970)(2 SCR 90); Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji etc. There is, it is true, no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its counsel. If there is negligence, deliberate or gross inaction or lack of bona fide on th....