TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 499
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat there is a delay of 110 days in filing the Cross Objection of the assessee for which also petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit is placed on record. To explain the delay for filing the Cross Objection, assessee submitted that it became aware of the correct legal position in respect of clause (i) of section 92BA through various decisions which squarely covers the assessee favourably for the upward adjustment made on account of various Specified Domestic Transactions (SDT). Assessee has raised a pure question of law in its Cross Objection which does not require any further investigation of facts and at the same time it has a bearing on its tax liability. Thus, assessee prayed that its Cross Objection be admitted by condoning the delay of 110 days for which it placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [1998] 97 Taxman 358 (SC). 2.1. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is open for debate in the appeal of the appellant/revenue. The respondent/assessee has explained the reason for such delay in the affidavit placed on the record. We have gone through the same. The affidavit in itself contains an exhaustive explanation. Therefore, for the just decision of the controversy, it is incumbent upon us to condone the delay. 2.6. In view of the above, we condone the delay in filing of the appeal as well as the cross-objection and proceed to adjudicate them on merits. 3. Since the assessee has raised pure question of law in its Cross Objection, we are inclined to take up the Cross Objection filed by the assessee before adjudicating on the appeal by the revenue. Ground of Cross Objection raised by the assessee is reproduced as under: "That on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, adjustments W.r.t to Specified Domestic Transactions entered into by the assessee during the relevant assessment year be deleted as the provisions of Section 92BA(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 covering transactions falling under Sec. 40A(2)(b) has been omitted vide Finance Act, 2017 with the effect that the said provisions never existed in the Statute and acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before the omission goes into effect, it cannot be granted afterwards. 7.3. He further submitted that the said view has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of lndia, [2000 (119) E.L.T. 257] and General Finance Co. v. ACIT, [2002] 257 ITR 338]. The said view has been reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in PCIT v. Texport Overseas (P.) Ltd., [[2020] 271 Taxman 170] and also by the Cooirdinate Bench of ITAT, Kolkata in various cases including ACIT v. Rahee Jharjharia in I.T.A. No. 1125/Kol/2019 dated July 2, 2022. 8. Ld. DR placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 9. We have duly considered this fold of contention raised by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. We are of the view that Coordinate Benches have taken a view that since clause (i) of section 92BA stands omitted from the provision and omission of such is to be construed as if it never existed in the Statute Book and if it never existed in the Statute Book, then, no Arm's Length Price is required to be determined for a transaction with specified persons in section 40A(2)(b) of a domestic transaction. If no Arm's Length Pri....