TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 879
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f being heard thus violating the principles of natural justice rendering the order liable to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the learned Assessing Officer grossly erred in holding the sum of Rs. 76,10,500/- added u/s 69A of the Act despite the fact that he is earned commission income which is around 2% which after deduction of reasonable expenses would be less than maximum amount not chargeable to income-tax in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held that levying interest under section 234A and 234B of the act is bad in law and facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the penalty proceedings-initiated u/s 271AAC, 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act is contrary to law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 8. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssary action and the present advocate advised him to file the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. It is therefore prayed that a lenient view may be taken in the interest of justice. The appellant submits that there has been no deliberate delay on his part. 6. The Appellant humbly submits that if this application for condonation is not allowed, great injustice would be done to the Appellant whereas if the application is allowed, no harm would be done to the Respondent and therefore the balance of convenience lies in favor of the Appellant. 7. The Appellant submits that it is a settled position under law that justice should not be denied based on technical breaches and substantial cause of justice would be served if matter is adjudicated on its merits. 8. Reliance is placed on the following judgments in this regard - a. CIT and Anr. v. Golf View Homes Ltd. (2017) 148 DTR 21 (Kar.) b. CIT v. ISRO Satellite Centre (2013) 218 Taxman 74 (Kar.) c. L. Sohanraj v. DCIT in ITA No. 120-135 of 2004 dated 19.07.2004 (Kar.) d. DIT(E) v. Karnataka Golf Association (2014) 42 taxmann.com 57 (Kar.) e. Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... delay and submitted that the assessee had neither appeared before the AO nor before the ld. CIT(A) which clearly demonstrate the careless attitude of the assessee. 6. We have perused the details filed by the assessee to justify the delay and we are satisfied that there is no malafide intention on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly before us. It is to be noted that u/s 253(5) of the Act the Tribunal may admit the appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it has established that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeals within the prescribed time. The explanation therefore, becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflect sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing these appeals within the prescribed time. We have gone through the reasons explained by the assessee in which the assessee alleged that his consultant did not take any action regarding the submission before the ld. CIT(A) and the assessee was completely unaware of the order passed by the ld.CIT(A). It is only after the attachment of the bank account, the assessee came to know that the order has already been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g an illegal order which would result in unjust enrichment on the part of the State by retaining the tax relatable thereto. Under the scheme of Constitution, the Government cannot retain even a single pie of the individual citizen as tax, when it is not authorized by an authority of law. Therefore, if we refuse to condone the delay, that would amount to legalize an illegal and unconstitutional order passed by the lower authority. 6.3 Further, in the case of People Education & Economic Development Society Vs/ ITO reported in 100 ITD 87 (TM) (Chen), wherein held that "when substantial justice and technical consultation are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay". 6.4 The next question may arise whether delay was excessive or inordinate. There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in ....