TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 21
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the Bench to condone the delay. The Ld. Counsel argued that delay identified by the Registry of ITAT is 1740 days, however, the effective delay is only one thousand one hundred (1100) days only, if the Covid-19 Pandemic period, is excluded, which ended on 22.03.2022. Therefore, effective delay in filing the appeal should be considered one thousand one hundred (1100) days. For that, the Ld. Counsel submitted an affidavit for condonation of delay, which is reproduced below: "(1) The assessee begs to prefer this application for condonation of delay in relation to Appeal filed against the order of the PCIT, Valsad u/s 263 of the Act which is received by the assessee on 22.03.2017. There is a delay of 1740 days in filing the appeal before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s made by the assessing officer in respect of the cash deposit made in the bank account. (6) Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant prayed to his Honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal: (a) To condone the delay of 1740 days in filing the Appeal No.44/SRT/2022 and to extent the time for filing the same inclusive and upto the date of filing the appeal; (b) To grant such other and further relief as deemed fit by Honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. (7) The above stated facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and I know that to make a false affidavit is a criminal offence." 3. The ld Counsel also stated that since the assessee has not filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A),....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to explain the sufficient cause/reason to condone the delay and even if the delay attributable to the Covid-19, Pandemic period, are excluded, then also there is a delay of 1100 days therefore such huge delay should not be condoned. 6. In rejoinder, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee has paid 20% tax demand, which has arised after appeal effect of the order of ld. PCIT passed under section 263 of the Act, therefore assessee has intention to file the appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. PCIT passed under section 263 of the Act. The assessee has also deposited the fees for filing the appeal, before this Tribunal in advance. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that the delay may be condoned. 7. We have heard both the par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the ends of justice, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing." 9. We note that in assessee`s case under consideration, the appeal was filed late, as the income tax practitioner (Shri Sanjay Gandhi) of assessee, did not advise the assessee to file appeal against the order u/s 263 of the Act, under the bona fide belief that the order u/s 263, was not appealable. We note that the power to condone the delay is discretionary and the discretion must be judicially exercised. The words 'sufficient cause' should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice where no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona- fide is imputable to the applicant. Thus, mistake of the lawyer or accountant may be a good reason for c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant in prosecuting the appeal. The cause shown by the petitioner is sufficient to justify condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 11. On merit, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. PCIT during revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act and the order being an ex-parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the Ld. PCIT may be granted to the assessee. 12. The....