TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned - remit the issue relating to penalty to the file of Learned First Appellate Authority for adjudication on merit - appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.4962/Del/2011 - - - Dated:- 10-1-2012 - G.D. AGRAWAL AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JJ. Appellant by: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CA Assessee by: Shri RS Negi, Sr.DR ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV:JUDICIAL MEMBER The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of Learned CIT(Appeals) dated 10.08.2011 passed for assessment year 2005-06. The grievance of the assessee is that Learned CIT(Appeals) has confirmed the penalty amounting to Rs.11,70,000 imposed under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by holding that appeal filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Shukla. However, the Learned CIT(Appeals) did not accept the explanation of the assessee and dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation alone. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that it was a bona fide mistake at the end of Shri Arvind Shukla, Manager (A/c). Learned First Appellate Authority ought to have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merit. He prayed that the delay be condoned and Learned CIT(Appeals) be directed to decide the appeal on merit. On the other hand, Learned DR relied upon the order of the Learned CIT(Appeals) and submitted that assessee failed to give any plausible explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. 3. We have duly considered the rival contentions. The Courts and the quasi- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elay. However, the Hon ble High Court reversed the order of the trial Court. The Hon ble Supreme Court while restoring the order of the trial Court has observed in paras 8, 9 and 10 as under : 8. The appellant s conduct does not on the whole warrant to castigate him as an irresponsible litigant. What he did in defending the suit was not very much far from what a litigant would broadly do. Of course, it may be said that he should have been more vigilant by visiting his advocate at short intervals to check up the progress of the litigation. But during these days when everybody 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 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek the remedy promptly. The Hon ble Court further observed that refusal to condone the delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the Court is always deliberate. The Hon ble Supreme Court in SLP [Civil No. 12980 of 1986, decided on 19th Feb., 1987, in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 62 CTR (Syn) 23 (SC)] has laid down the following guidelines : 1. Ordinarly a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c) who has deposed that he had received the penalty order well in time but he put the order in his drawer and it slipped from his mind to take further action. It must be remembered in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of litigant concerned but that alone is not enough to turn down the plea and shut the door against him. Even for the sake of argument, for a moment, we assume that there was some negligence on the part of Manager(A/c) in not making the arrangements for taking further action on the penalty order, can that negligence should cost the assessee a penalty of Rs.11,70,000. To our mind, the punishment in the shape of penalty is disproportionate to the negligence, even if it is on the part of the Manager(A/c.). L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
