TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d pressurized for payment of instalments, which led the assessee to great mental pressure. As relying on COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VERSUS MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS [ 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT] assessee in the instant case was having sufficient/reasonable cause for filing appeals before the CIT(A). Therefore, condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 - delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) has been condoned, the issue on merits necessarily has to be adjudicated by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter is remitting to the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits. Appeal of assessee allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA Nos.1649 and 1850/Bang/2016 Assessment years: 2008-09 and 2009-10 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A), the assessee has filed the present appeals before tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee had submitted that explanation for the cause of delay supported by an affidavit was filed before CIT(A) and CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeals of the assessee in limini without going into the issue on merits. The learned AR strongly relied on the grounds raised in the appeal memo. The learned DR present was duly heard. 5. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. For AY 2008-09, the assessment order was received by the assessee on 3.1.2011 and the due date for filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was 2.2.2011. The assessee filed the appeal only on 30.6.2011. Therefore there is a delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. It is therefore submitted that, there is no deliberate inaction on my part in fling the appeal beyond the limitation period available. I submit that the aforesaid delay was due to sufficient and reasonable cause and obviously there was no mala fide intention in delaying the filing of appeal. 6. If my prayer is not allowed, the Appellant will be put to immense hardship and would cause irreparable loss substantial injustice. 7. No injury or hardship would be cause to the other side if my prayer is allowed. 6. The Mumbai High Court in the case of Anand B. Shinde (HUF) v. Income-tax Officer -24(1)(3), Bombay [2014] taxmann.com 212 (Bombay) was considering the following factual situation: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken the liberal view and condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Even if the Commissioner (Appeals) was not satisfied with the ground set out in the appeal memo at the time of filing the appeal, he should have called upon the consultant appearing for the assessee before him to explain the delay, as there was gap of almost one year between the death of the assessee s mother and the date of the assessment order. This does not appear to have been done. In the peculiar facts and the circumstances of the case, interests of justice would be served if delay is condoned and appeal is heard on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals) subject to payment of costs. [Para 9] Therefore, the orders passed by the appellate authorities were li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each 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 non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
