TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 710
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the appeal bearing ITA No. 393/KOL/2024 is time barred by 126 days and the appeal bearing ITA No. 394/KOL/2024 is time barred by 123 days. The assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay along with affidavit of Shri Biswarup Debburman, Vice-President of the assessee- Society. It is deposed in the affidavit that there was some communication gap between the Society vis-à-vis Tax Consultant. Due to that, these appeals could not be filed well in time. 3. We have duly considered the 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 tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inst each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 4. Similarly, we would like to make reference to authoritative pronouncement of Honble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrisknan Vs. M. Kri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [ AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But 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. Wh....