Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 616 - HC - Income TaxCondonation of delay - Tribunal power to condone the delay in filing the appeal by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act - HELD THAT:- 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 legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, utmost consideration shall be shown to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the explanation offered for the delay need not be accepted. It is also a salutary guideline that when delay occurred due to laches on the part of a litigant is condoned, the opposite party shall be compensated by payment of costs for the loss and hardship suffered by him (See Balakrishnan v. Krishnamurthy [1998 (9) TMI 602 - SUPREME COURT] ). It is always not necessary to adduce medical evidence in applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to prove illness of a party. In the present case, there is nothing to show that the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was deliberately caused by the assessee. In fact, the assessee would have derived no advantage or benefit by causing delay. In such circumstances, we are of the view that, the Tribunal should have adopted a liberal approach and condoned the delay of 132 days in filing the appeal before it. We find that the Tribunal failed to construe the expression “sufficient cause” occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act in its proper perspective. The substantial question of law raised in the appeal is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
|