TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (10) TMI 826
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me forward for arguing the matter. We heard the learned Departmental Representative for the revenue and gone through the written submissions of the assessee. 3. The brief facts of the case are that four appeals were filed before the learned CIT (A) against the order of the learned Assessing Officer dated 29-6-1999, 16th September, 1998, 11th September, 1998 and 18th September, 1998. Aggrieved with the action taken under section 201(1A), read with sections 200 and 194-I of the Income-tax Act vide which the learned Income-tax Officer, TDS levied an interest of Rs. 1,10,23,030 for the financial years 1997-98 and 1996-97. All these appeals were filed before the first appellate authority on 31st August, 1999. According to the first appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l. We wish to draw your honours kind attention towards the judicial decision reported at 35 TTJ 204 (Delhi-Tribunal) in which it is held that there was a sufficient ground for condoning the delay which was caused on account of the conduct of the counsel and was likely to result in miscarriage of justice as the assessee's valuable right of appeal is seen to have lost or forfeited. In lieu of the facts and circumstances stated above, we request your honour to kindly condone the delay by exercising the power vested with your honour under section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, for the sake of natural justice, which was caused on account of reasons beyond our control." According to the first appellate authority, the explanati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the assessee was required to explain each day's delay. We have duly considered rival contentions. 6. The courts and the quasi-judicial bodies are empowered to condone the delay if a litigant satisfied the court that there were sufficient reasons for availing the remedy after expiry of the limitation. Such reasoning should be to the satisfaction of the court. The expression "sufficient cause or reason" as provided in sub-section (3) of section 249 of the Income-tax Act is used in identical position in the Limitation Act and the CPC. Such expression has also been used in other section of the Income-tax Act such as sections, 274, 273, etc. The expression "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act as we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....verybody is fully occupied with his own avocation of life an omission to adopt such extra vigilance need not be used as ground to depict him as a litigant not aware of his responsibilities, and to visit him with drastic consequences. 9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation, whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is sati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id down the following guidelines :- 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone 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 than can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "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 on a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould not gain anything. By filing the appeal late. There is no mala fide imputable to the assessee. The delay in our considered opinion in filing the appeal is a result of negligence or inaction on the part of the tax consultant. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down the plea and to shut the doors against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fide or it is not put-forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the courts must show utmost consideration to such litigant. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan, the length of delay is no matter. It is the acceptability of the explanation. That is the only criteri....