TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 950
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The Ld.AR has filed an affidavit dated 26.02.2024 stating the delay in filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A). It is submitted that the assessee has been held to be a non-performing asset as on 27.02.2018 on the enforcement notice issued by the Union Bank of India dated 13.06.2018. It is submitted by the Ld.AR that all the assets of the assessee have been seized by the Union Bank of India and assessee could not produce anything before the authorities below to represent its case. 4. In the process of ongoing litigation between the assessee and the Union Bank of India, the delay occurred in filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A). He placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s filed before the Ld.CIT(A). 8. On examining whether the reason stated by the assessee in condonation petitions are sufficient to condone the delay and there exists sufficient cause for not presenting the appeals within the period of limitation under the statute, the assessee must show that it was diligent in taking appropriate steps and the delay was caused notwithstanding with its due diligence. If it appears to be guilty of latches or negligence and does not take appropriate steps to pursue its remedy till about the close of the period prescribed for filing of appeal, it must be prepared to have its remedy barred without expecting condonation. Still, it is for the party concerned to explain the reasons for delay and it is not the funct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appeals within the period of limitation. The cause for the delay therefore deserves to be considered, when there exist a reasonable cause, and therefore the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In support, we rely on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Hon'ble Madras High Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. As compared to 21 years, delay of about 1000 to 2000 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or excessive. 11. Hon'ble Madras High Court in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fidavit opposing the application of the assessee for condonation of delay. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sandhya Rani Sarkar vs. Smt. Sudha Rani Debi reported in 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 application of the assessee, therefore, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that; "It does not mean that when the delay was for longer period, the delay should not be condoned even though there was sufficient cause. Condonation of delay is the discretion ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rein, Hon'ble Court observed as under:- "The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits ". The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a ....