TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the form of profits in lieu of salary as defined in Section 17(3) - these are amount of compensation received by, the employee from the employer in connections with the terms of employment and, therefore, the assessee are clearly entitled for relief u/s 89(1) in accordance with law in respect of the payments that are included in the total income – Decided in favour of assessee. Condonation of delay of 2 years and seven months – delay genuine and bonafide or not – Held that:- The assessee cannot be treated as a litigant who was not interested in pursuing the legal remedy against the assessment order - CIT(A) clearly vindicates the assessee's claim that he was acting on legal advice - The assessee was a bank employee and not a legal expert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eed that the issue in hand is no more res Integra as under similar circumstances the appeal filed the employees of the bank with a delay of 2 year 7 months were condoned by the ITAT. 3. The Delhi A Bench of the ITAT in ITA No. 363/D/2013 in the case of Anil Kumar Verma vs. ITO order dated 29.11.2013 condoned the delay by observing as follows :- 6.2 We have considered the submissions of both sides and have perused the record of the case. 6.3 The condonation of delay depends upon the sufficiency of reasons seeking condonation. In the present case, the assessee in its condonation petition had pointed out that it was on account of legal advice that he did not pursue the matter, any further, after the assessment order was passed. Subse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatmentand the law is administered in an evenhanded manner. There is no warrant for according a step motherly treatment when the State is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 7.1 In our opinion, this decision is squarely applicable in the present set of facts and the delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) should have been condoned. 8. Ld. DR has relied on various decisions which are discussed hereunder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 274/D/2011. The quantum appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 1238/D/2011 is delayed by 902 days. Though the assessee mentioned in ground No. 3 in the appeal that there was reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal, not even a whisper has been made in the documents annexed with the appeal as to what was the reasonable cause nor any application for condonation of delay of 902 days in filing the appeal has been submitted ever since appeal was filed on 10.3.2011.None appeared before us on behalf of the assessee even when date of hearing was specifically informed to the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee when he appeared on 22.11.2012. A is evident from the aforesaid facts, quantum appeal filed by the assessee when he appeared on 22.11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... must be proved beyond the shadow of doubt that the assessee was diligent and was not guilty of negligence whatsoever. The sufficient cause within the contemplation of the limitation provision must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the provisions. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361 has held that the cause for the delay in filing the appeal which by due care and attention could have been avoided, cannot be a sufficient cause within the meaning of the limitation provision. Where no negligence, nor inaction, or want of bonafides can be imputed to the assessee a liberal construction of the provisions has to be made in order to advance substantial justice. Seekers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. But, as the issue as to whether the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 10(10C) is no more res Integra in view of number of decisions on the matter, we feel it would be an empty formality to set aside the matter. Thus we dispose off the case on merits. 6. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sail DSP VR Employees Association 1998 v. Union of India held that the maximum exemption under section 10(10C) of ₹ 5 lakhs is allowable as all the conditions of Section 10(10C) read with rule 2BA are fulfilled. If the sum is received in excess of ₹ 5 lakhs, the same was held eligible for relief under section 89 (1) of the Act in view of the decision of Hon'ble Madras High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
