TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e., in May, 1993 itself which indicate that such investment has been made within one year of the sale of old flat. The documents i.e., the order of State Redressal Commissioner coupled with the sale agreement duly reflect that new flat was purchased by the assessee well within the time. Such sale agreement has been executed in pursuance of the State Redressal Commissioner s order, therefore, its authenticity cannot be doubted. The dispute relates to assessment year 1993-94 assessee has already undertaken two rounds of litigation up to the Tribunal as well as in different forums. Therefore, taking into consideration all these circumstances we do not see any good reason to set aside this issue to the file of Assessing Officer. We allow this ground of appeal of assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to grant relief u/s 54 of the Act to the assessee. However, we remit the computation of relief admissible u/s 54 to the Assessing Officer. He shall compute the relief taking into consideration the payments made by the assessee within the time limit and he shall carry out such exercise after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In the result, the appeal of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tisfied with this order of the ld. CIT(A) assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No. 2651/M/97. 8. During the pendancy of the dispute in the second round one more event had developed with regard to the purchase of new flat. Since the builder was not executing the sale agreement with the assessee she approached the Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission at Bombay vide complaint No. 97 of 1995. The builder filed the reply to the complaint and ultimately the Commission had decided the complaint of assessee vide order dated 16-5-1996. In its order the Commission directed the builder to execute agreement within a period of eight weeks from the date of order. Consequent thereupon the builder has executed the agreement on 22-5-1996. The copies of all these documents are placed in the paper book at pages 21 to 68. 9. On the strength of these documents again the second order of ld. CIT(A) assessee raised two grounds of appeal in the Tribunal and contended that she is entitled for relief under section 54 of the Act with regard to her investment made in purchase of new flat and in the second ground she disputed the valuation of the old flat as on 1-4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed this appeal also, hence the reasons narrated by the assessee in the affidavit are not sufficient to condone the delay of almost more than 7 years. 13. We have duly considered the rival contentions. 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 (5) of section 253 of the IT Act is used in identical position in the Limitation Act and the CPC. Such expression has also been used in other sections of the IT Act such as sections 274, 273, etc. The expression "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as similar other provisions, the ambit of exercise of powers thereunder have been subject-matter of consideration before the Hon ble Supreme Court on various occasions. In the case of State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality AIR 1972 SC 749 the Hon ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of expression "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... *** The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The 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." [Emphasis supplied] The Hon ble Supreme Court further observed that 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 matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admissibility of relief under section 54 and after the decision of this appeal she could understand that she has wrongly taken up this ground against the second order of the ld. CIT(A), apropos to it she should have challenged the first order of the ld. CIT(A) i.e., impugned herein. In this situation had the Tribunal not taken six years in disposing of the appeal of assessee she could have not supposed to explain at least these six years of the delay. In the case of Nand Kishore v. State of Punjab 1995 (6) SCC 614 the Hon ble Supreme Court has condoned the delay of 31 years almost under the similar circumstances. There the petitioner has joined service in the erstwhile Patiala State in May 1941. On the formation of Pepsu State he was taken as an assistant w.e.f. 1-9-1956. Subsequently Pepsu state was merged with State of Punjab. He was integrated as assistant in the Punjab Civil Secretariat at Chandigarh in the Food Distribution Branch. He completed 10 years qualifying service. However, he was compulsorily retired on 6-1-1961. He challenged this order of retirement by way of writ petition in the Punjab Haryana High Court. The writ petition was dismissed on 2-2-1962. In the writ pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
