9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case by upholding penalty orders on the ground that appeal was considerably delayed despite the fact that original joint appeal against orders u/s. 271(l)(c) and 271 AAA was filed in time. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case by upholding penalty imposed even when the quantum additions stand deleted in appeal before the IT AT. 4. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground/s of appeal before the final disposal of the appeal. 2. At the time of hearing, parties were heard only in respect of ground No. 2. 3. The ld. AR inviting attention to the Paper Book consisting of 5 pages submitted that the assessee admittedly had filed one appeal against the two orders. Copy of the grounds filed in the Paper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposed u/s 271(l)(c) have already been passed in favour of the assessee. On realizing that a separate appeal was to be submitted by the assessee against the order imposing penalty u/s 271AAA the assessee was advised to submit this appeal which is delayed considerably due to the apparent advice given by me. It is prayed that since the original appeal was in time this appeal may kindly be entertained. 6. We find on going through the impugned order that the said submissions have not been addressed. Alive to the departmental concerns whether the relevant documents were available before the CIT(A), we set aside the issue in terms of the prayer back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with the direction to verify the fact namely, whether in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. CIT(A) against orders imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAA on the bona fide belief that a single appeal can be filed against these two orders received on same date by the assessee. That on realizing the mistake a separate appeal was submitted for penalty imposed under Section 271AAA which was delayed due to bona fide mistake on my part." 6.2. In the facts of the present case, we have seen that no undue advantage has been derived by the assessee by filing the appeal late and no vested right of the Revenue can be said to have been disturbed in case the delay is condoned. It would infact not be out of context to quote from the landmark decision of the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji & Others 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." 7. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations and directions in terms of the pronouncement made in the Open Court, we set aside the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
