TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rgy on the part of the bank in pursuing the matter. However, the lethargy is not of such a type that the delay should not be condoned. The notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued on 14th September 2009. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer finalized the assessment treating the transaction of purchase and subsequent sale of the IDFC Deep Discount Bond and UPSFC as not in the nature of banking but as a speculation business. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹ 75,05,000=00. The appeal filed by the applicant herein before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also came to be dismissed. Ultimately, the appeal was filed before the Tribunal, and in the absence of any counsel appearing for the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 260A(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is 120 days from the date of communication of the order appealed against. This appeal was, therefore, (subject to what is stated hereinafter) required to be filed on or before 13.02.2019. The same, however, came to be filed on 22.01.2020. Thus, there is delay of 342 days in filing the said tax appeal. The reason for the delay is as under : 2. The impugned order passed by the ITAT in ITA No. 990/Rjt/2010 was communicated to the applicant on 17.10.2018. However, the Branch Manager, who was looking after such official communication had retired around the same time. Hence, when the order was received, it was put away by a clerk instead of being forwarded to the tax consultant. It was only someti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the applicant had passed away. Therefore, there is a good and sufficient reason to condone the delay. 4. From the above facts, it is most respectfully submitted that 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 vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay. It is further submitted that the tax appeal may kindly be decided on merits rather than rejecting the same on the ground of delay and laches as the cause of substantial justice shall prevail over the technical considerations. 3. The application seeking condonation of delay has been opposed by the Revenue by filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for non-representation on the date of hearing, it would be at liberty, if so advised, to seek for recall of this order. From the above observations, it is clear that the Tribunal gave an opportunity to the assessee bank to represent if there is genuine cause for non attendance. The Tribunal showed their willingness to recall the ex-parte order if the reasonable cause exists. Thus there is no violation of principles of natural justice as alleged. The applicant however without seeking recall has filed the appeal u/s.260A. : 6. It is submitted that in the Tax appeal filed u/s 260 A of the Act, the applicant has raised the question of law involving merits of the additions ignoring the fact that the ITAT, without going into the mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal on its own merits even in the absence of any legal representative on behalf of the bank. According to Mr.Hemani, one chance may be given to the bank to pursue the appeal filed before the appellate tribunal, and that is possible only if this Court condones the delay, allows the tax appeal and remits the matter to the appellate tribunal. 7. On the other hand, this application has been vehehemently opposed by Mr.Bhatt, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue. He would submit that no case is made out for condonation of delay of 342 days in filing the Tax Appeal. Mr.Bhatt would submit that the averments made in this application do not constitute any sufficient cause for the condonation of delay. Mr.Bhatt submits that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had been reduced to that extent in the Assessment Year 2007-08. A notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued dated 23rd April 2009. The notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued on 14th September 2009. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer finalized the assessment treating the transaction of purchase and subsequent sale of the IDFC Deep Discount Bond and UPSFC as not in the nature of banking but as a speculation business. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹ 75,05,000=00. The appeal filed by the applicant herein before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also came to be dismissed. Ultimately, the appeal was filed before the Tribunal, and in the absence of any counsel appearing for the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
