TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not condoning the delay in filing appeal? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not adjudicating upon but at the same time confirming the action of the Respondent on merits in making addition of Rs. 33,61,451/- being part of the creditors u/s. 68 of the Act? (iii) Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse in as much as: (a) the decision does not contain and deal with any of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant at all; (b) the decision upheld the order of the CIT(A) on merits on one hand and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant on the other hand on the grounds of delay and (c) the decision does not appreciate undisputed facts placed on record." 3. However, Tax Appeal is admitted for consideration of following substantial question of law only: "(i) Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not condoning the delay in filing appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8. The fact that we were late in filling the appeal with the Hon. ITAT, Ahmedabad, without any fault of company. 9. This is the only reason why the appellant is filling the appeal late. Therefore we request your honour to condone the delay in filling the appeal against the order of the Hon. CIT-Appeals. We once again admit that there is no any other intention for filling the appeal on time and request your honour to condone the delay in filling the appeal. Whatever stated above is true and correct. I am aware that doing wrong Affidavit is a crime." 8. The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 21.02.2022 however did not condone the delay holding as under: 4. We have gone through the affidavit filed by the Director of the assessee-company. The assessee is a private limited. No doubt it has its own Accounts Manager to look after accounts and financial management. Even before the ld. CIT(A) they had engaged a Chartered Accountant to represent the case on their behalf. The reason stated in their affidavit are not convincing for the fact that the impugned order received by the then Accounts Manager in 2014 itself, but he was stated to have lef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... explained that the assessee came to know about the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) only at the time when the recovery proceedings were started when the appeal effect of the order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Anand in the month of March, 2016 was given by the Assessing Officer. It was also stated in the affidavit that the Accountant of the appellant left the company in the month of May, 2016 and the appellant was not aware about the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) in the year 2014 as it was not made known to the appellant by the said Accountant since he left the company. 13. It was therefore, submitted that to render substantial justice, the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay so as to grant an opportunity to the assessee to make submissions on merits. It was submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have decided the appeal of the assessee on merits after rejecting the application to condone the delay. 14. In support of his submission, reliance was placed on the following decisions: 1) N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 Supreme Court Case 123. 2) Collector, Land Acquisition, Aanantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt accepts the explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior Court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first Court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior Court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower Court. 10. The reason for such a different stance is thus : The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. Time limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. 11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of lega....