Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 368 - HC - Income TaxCondonation of delay in filing an appeal before ITAT - delay of 154 days in filing the I.T.A. - Unexplained investment on Gold and silver jewellery found during the course of search and seizure proceedings - HELD THAT:- The Supreme Court in N.Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy [1998 (9) TMI 602 - SUPREME COURT] has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice; and that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties, but they are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. It held that there is no presumption that delay in approaching the Court is always deliberate, and the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. Every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned, but that alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him; and if the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. It also observed that if the delay is deliberate, then the Court should not accept the explanation. It held that while condoning the delay, the Court should compensate the opposite party with costs. Applying the principles laid down in the above case to the instant case, we are of the opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the explanation for the delay offered by the appellant cannot be said to smack of mala fides or that it was put forth as a part of a dilatory strategy, and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay of said period of 154 days in filing the I.T.A. and taken up the matter on merits.
|