TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 942
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al on dated 02.01.2025 before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine being barred by limitation u/s 249(2) of the Act r.w.s. 5 of the Limitation Act, by observing and holding as under: "5. Decision: - 5.1 On perusal of all the grounds of appeal, here it is found that, the appellant has e-filed for appeal on 02.01.2025 for the AY 2011-12 while the order u/s 143(1) was given on 29.03.2014. As there is clear delay of 3900 days (almost 10 years), the condonation has to be granted as per the law and precedence. Under section 249(3) of the Act, the appellate authority may, on good and sufficient reason for the delay being shown, admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of limitation. 5.3 The exercise of discretion in condonation of delay in matters of limitation, such as in the present case u/s 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be carried out within the meaning of "Sufficient Cause" as envisaged in Section 5 of Limitation Act. Hence, the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....btained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal, (vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamount to disregarding the statutory provision 27 It is in the light of the above legal position that now we have to test whether the inordinate delay in filing the proposed appeal ought to be condoned or not in this case" 5.4 Based on above pronouncement, it is important to go through the submissions of the assessee to ascertain whether the delay is attributable to sufficient cause or it is case where in there is deliberate inaction or negligence on part of the assessee. The facts of the appellant are that ROI was filed for AY 2011-12 which was processed and demand notice served on assessee on 29.03.2014. Aggrieved with the order, rectification was filed with a delay of 2 years on 06.05.2016....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly if the appellant could successfully demonstrate that it had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the period of 30 days. As already discussed above, the assessee has slept over the precious time for seeking the remedy. The law of limitation is found upon the maxims "Interest Reipublicee Ut Sit FinisLitium" that litigation must come to an end in the interest of society as a whole, and "vigilantibus non dormientibus Jara subveniunt" that the law assists those that are vigilant with their rights, and not those that sleep thereupon. The law of limitation in India identifies the need for limiting litigation by striking a balance between the interests of the state and the litigant. 5.5 It is important to quote the decision of ITAT Pune Tribunal in the case of Navchaitanya Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd for Ay 2018-19 in ITA no 884/PUN/2024 dated 06.08.2024 wherein denial of condonation by the JCIT(A) has been upheld by the bench with following remarks "8. In view of the above legal position, we now proceed to examine the facts of the case in order to determine whether there is sufficient and reasonable cause in not filing appeal before the CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cations for condonation of delay under Section 5 which may be summarized as follows The words "sufficient cause", as appearing in Section 5 of Limitation Act, should receive a liberal construction when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the applicant/appellant, in order to advance substantial justice. The words "sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation" should be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The decisive, factor in condonation of delay is not the length of delay but sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation. The degree of leniency to be shown by a court depends on the nature of application and facts and circumstances of the case. For example, court's view delays in making applications in a pending appeal more leniently than delays in the institution of an appeal. The court's view applications relating to lawyer's lapses more leniently than applications relating to litigant's lapses. Want of 'dilig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly." 5.10 The Courts in the abovementioned cases, highlighted upon the importance introducing the concept of "reasonableness" while giving the clause "sufficient cause" a liberal interpretation. In furtherance of the same, the Courts has cautioned regarding the necessity of distinguishing cases where delay is of few days, as against the cases where the delay is inordinate as it might accrue to the prejudice of the rights of the other party. In such cases, where there exists inordinate delay and the same is attributable to the party's inaction and negligence, the Courts have to take a strict approach so as to protect the substantial rights of the parties. 5.11 The Division bench of the Hon'ble Bombay HC in Ornate Traders Private Limited V. The Income Tax Officer, Mumbai emphasized the need for reasonableness and hence, the actions which can be condoned by the court should fall within the scope of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there is no denial or destruction of a statutory right in this case, by adhering to the prescribed period of limitation as otherwise it will only lead to protract the matter endlessly and will undoubtedly defeat the legislative scheme and intention behind the concerned provision as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. v. M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited 2020[36] G.S.T.1. 305. 5.16 For these reasons, the delay of 3900 days in filing of appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the appellant's failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation u/s. 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.s. 5 of Limitation Act and hence the appeal sought to be instituted belatedly is hereby rejected. 5.17 In the result, as delay in filing of appeal is not condoned, the appeal is not admitted and is rejected accordingly. 6. In result, appeal is dismissed as not admitted." 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the order of the Ld. Commissioner in dismissing the appeal of the Assessee in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, by not condoning the delay involved. 5. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record and given thoughtful considerations to the rival submissions of the parties. 6. In this case, the Assessee had declared its total income at "Rs.Nil" by filing its return of income u/s 139 of the Act on dated 29.11.2012 for the AY under consideration. The CPC while processing the return of income filed by the Assessee, sent a computation sheet u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act issued by Exemption, Ward 2(1), Mumbai, whereby the net demand of Rs. 63,58,490/- has been raised. In the computation sheet at the bottom, it is clearly written as: "Please note that this is NOT an intimation/order. This information sheet shows the computation of tax and interest to the assessment year mentioned. This is a taxpayer friendly measure to provide information to taxpayers for previous assessment years where return was not processed at the Centralized Processing Center, Income Tax Department, Bangalore and where taxpayer may not readily possess the intimation sheet/order issued by the Department." 7. The Assessee, being aggrieved, against the said computation sent by Assessing Officer (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 u/s 143(1) of the Act for the A.Y. 2018-19, challenged the same by raising an objection/response dated 23.06.2020, with the following requests: - "We are not given the credit of exemption u/s 11 in the return processed by the CPC. Hence, requested you to give the credit of the same and cancel the demand thereafter vide intimation dated 05.01.2023 with regard to the demand outstanding in the case of the Assessee issued by Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward 2(1), Mumbai." 11. Thereafter, the following outstanding demands were intimated to the Assessee and requested to make payments of the outstanding demands immediately but no such demand for the AY 2011-12 has neither been highlighted nor raised: Sr. No. Asst. Year Order under which the demand raised Date of order Amount (Rs.) 1 2020 154 19/08/2022 2,32,160 2 2017 143(3) 29/11/2019 7,12,000 3 2016 143(3) 1/12/2018 4,20,032 12. Thereafter, vide communication/intimation dated 17.02.2023 u/s 2(45) of the Act for the A.Y. 2022-23, the following outstanding demands and interest payable u/s 220(2) of the Act, were also intimated which read as under: SL No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er (Exemption), ward 2(1), Mumbai, no demand qua A.Y. 2010-11 has been raised and therefore the Assessee understood that no demand as on that date is existing, as the grievance/rectification application dated 06.05.2016 u/s 154 of the Act, filed by the Assessee in response to computation sheet u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act raising the demand of Rs. 63,58,490/-, has been addressed to and/or the response filed on dated 23.06.2020 for disputing the demand pertaining to A.Y. 2010-11 has been addressed to or decided by not raising any further demand. However, the CPC again vide intimation/communication dated 11.11.2024 u/s 245 of the Act, has raised the demand of Rs. 63,58,490/- u/s 143(1)(a) dated 23.03.2014 for the A.Y. 2011- 12. Thus, the Assessee being aggrieved challenged the intimations /orders dated 11.11.2024 and 26.12.2024 along with computation sheet/intimation order dated 23.03.2014 passed by the Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC Bangalore for the A.Y. 2011-12, by filing an appeal on dated 02.01.2025 before the Ld. Commissioner and therefore the Assessee has claimed that as the Assessee had received the last intimation qua raising the demand for the A.Y. 2011-12 only on 11.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding in prosecuted in good faith in a court which from defect of jurisdiction or any CASS of a like manner is unable to entertain." 20. Though the provisions of section 14 of the limitation Act, are not strictly applicable to the instant case, as there was no defect of jurisdiction or any case of like nature, is entertaining the claim of the Assessee by the AO, however, considering the true spirit of the provisions, as the Assessee has acted with due diligence and in good faith and continued with the proceedings by filing application u/s. 154 of the Act and raising various grievances, which otherwise have not yielded any result and therefore the Assessee is entitled for the leniency and/or exclusion of time spent in those proceedings detailed above. 21. Recently, the Hon'ble co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vishva Villa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. V. ITO ward 19(3)(1) (ITA No. 682, 683, 684/MUM/2024) decided on 27.06.2024 also considered the identical facts and circumstances and inordinate delay of nearly 8 years and ul....