TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 782
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has completely ignored on the merit of the case, and only delt with delay in filing appeal. 2. The Appellant is a registered Co-operative Housing Society registered under Maharashtra State Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 registration No.BOM/HSG/3256 of 1971 dated 14th December, 1971, and eligible for benefit of deduction U/S 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has overlooked the fact that the Appellant is eligible for the deduction U/S 80P(2)(d) of the Act and outright rejection of the case is not within the power and competence of the CPC under the provision of 143(1) (a) at the time of processing of the Return of Income rejection of claim deduction, on the basis of the Return of Income, statement and record it is out of Jurisdiction of the CPC to reject the claim. In the view of the foregoing para-U/S 143(1)(a) the process return is based on the return of income and statement accompanied the CPC have no power to reject the claim deduction without assigning any reason and therefore an addition of Rs. 2, 15,083/- has to be delete....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the appellant society and the present one. The previous outgoing committee which was ousted under unpleasant circumstances through AGM, was in complete command of the day-to-day financial affairs was seized of the society s books of accounts and records and were not parting records There are severe allegations between the present committee and ex. Committee members. The Committee Members and office bearers who did not the societies books of the accounts documents present status and password as they were completely hostile and uncooperative. The present Committee which was elected in the AGM held later on following hue and cry and demand of the majority members of the society did not have any idea of non-filing of Return of Income and status of the Income tax matter. There was no customary handing over and taking over of records and documents. Thus present the committee completely ignorant and unaware of the intimation issued by the Income tax department and received u/s 143(1) of the Income tax Act. By the previous Committee. The discord and extent of dispute between ex Committee heads and present Committee is the matter of records. Subsequently much after when new Committee a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f such an appeal or application. Sometimes the relevant statute carves out exceptions by granting the competent authority/forum a power to entertain an appeal or application beyond the prescribed period on sufficient cause. It is in the hue of such an express authorization that the concerned authority/forum can exercise its discretion and condone the delay, if satisfied with the reasonableness of the cause in late presentation. In the context of Income-tax Act, 1961, although section 249(2) of the Act requires the filing of an appeal before the CIT(A) within 30 days, sub-section (3) empowers the CIT(A) to admit an appeal after the expiry of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the period. As discussed in the preceding para, the present appellant has not been able to show any reasonable cause for filing the appeal late by 3615 days. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the statutory right to appeal which was vested with the appellant was not exercised within the stipulated time u/s.249(2). Thus, this clearly is a case of laches and is directly the result of deliberate inaction on the part of the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation. iv. Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; v. Merely some persons obtained 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, vi. Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay: vii, 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. 9. Moreover, there are two essential ingredients for condoning delays: (i) the existence of 'sufficient cause'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;s delay must be explained' The appellant is also required to demonstrate that the 'cause' for the delay must have arisen before the expiry of the limitation period, and, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v State of Gujarat (MR 1981 SC 733], "no event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation period can constitute sufficient cause" 12. At the same time, the Hon. Apex Court has, in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Mst. Katiji [1987] 66 STC 228 (SC), advised for a balanced and pragmatic approach: i. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. ii. Refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. iii. 'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic man....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the meaning of the limitation provision. 15. In the instant case, there exists no sufficient reason for the delay. Such inordinate delay cannot be condoned as condonation in the present case would not be in accordance with the exposition of law. It will rather be grave prejudice to the Respondent, which is also a litigant in the appeal and doesn't deserve a step-motherly treatment. In this context, the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Mohan Kabra (2002) 178 CTR (P& H) 274 is relevant, which reads as under "Where the legislature spells out a period of limitation and provides for power to condone the delay as well, then such delay can be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. Now, it is a settled principle of law that hat the the provisio provisions relating to specified period of limitation must be applied with their rigour and effective Since the appellant has failed to show any "sufficient cause" 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,....