TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 1451
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s filed the present appeal. 2. According to the appellant, for the assessment year 2010-11, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") on 26.03.2013 in determining the taxable total income at Rs. 1,23,24,320/- as against the reported income mentioned in the return of income filed on 11.01.2011 at Rs. 99,84,330/-. In para 3 of the assessment order, the respondent made an addition of Rs. 23,40,000/- representing fresh unsecured loans in terms of section 68 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory explanation offered by the appellant. Challenging the said assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the appellate authority by order dated 30.12.2016. Aggr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llate order dated 16.10.2019 in ITA.No.3/CIT(A)-3/ 2018-19 which fortified the stand of the appellant. Pointing out all these reasons, the appellant sought to condone the delay in filing the appeal and decide the case on merits. However, the Tribunal erred in rejecting the plea of the appellant, on the premise that the reasons given by the assessee were not bona fide and accordingly, dismissed the condonation of delay petition and the appeal as time barred, by the order impugned in this appeal. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the appellant has now in possession of the necessary materials to prove their claim and has fair chance of success in the appeal and hence, an opportunity may be provided to them to contest the case on meri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide and consequently, dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. 7. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the following decisions, in regard to the condonation of delay: (i)N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, [1998(7) SCC 123], wherein, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows: "The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time-limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. The words 'sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice." (ii)In Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy [2013 (12) SCC 649], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has culled out the principles applicable to an application for condonation of delay and the same are profitably reproduced....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irst one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpola....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the condonation of delay to the respondent in that application will be fallacious. In our view, each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of the case. Length of the delay is a relevant matter to be taken into account while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. It is not open to any litigant to fix his own period of limitation for instituting proceedings for which law has prescribed period of limitation." "17.... Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long time, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay, and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that substantial justice deserved to be prefer....