TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1072X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to apply the law in a meaningful manner to sub-serves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. In the instant case, applying the same principles, we find that there is no culpable negligence or malafide on the part of the assessee in delayed filing of the present appeal and it does not stand to benefit by resorting to such delay more so considering the fact that it has applied for settlement of present dispute and payment of appropriate taxes. Therefore, in the factual matrix of the present case, we find that there exists sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal and as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court, where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred. Though assessment and penalty proceedings are independent proceedings but at the same time, there is a close connection between the two proceedings and where the assessee has filed the present appeal apparently to safeguard its rights in relation to the penalty proceedings, the assessee cannot be denied and deprived of his legal defence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was Scheme, 2020. The A.O. has enquired about the status of the condonation of delay application filed before the Tribunal in order for him to take appropriate action under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and it was therefore requested to consider the assessee s condonation application. 6. In its condonation application, the assessee has submitted as under: The assessee is an individual. The penalty u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act 1961 was imposed by the learned AO vide order dated 26.06.2018. The assesssee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A), Ajmer on 20.07.2018. The learned CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order on 07.05.2019/27.05.2019 without giving any opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It has been came to knowledge of the assessee when assessee's application under Vivaad to Vivad Scheme was rejected by the CIT, Ajmer and the reason was that no appeal is pending. Then the counsel visited the site of ITBA of assessee it came to the knowledge of the assessee that the order has already been passed by the learned CIT(A), Ajmer vide order dated 07.05.2019 on ex-parte basis. The assessee has not received any notice for hearing of the appeal as well as the order passed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in filling appeal could not be condoned-Held, Supreme Court in case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and others held that legal advice tendered by a professional and litigant acting upon it one way or other could be sufficient cause to seek condonation of delay and coupled with other circumstances and factors for applying liberal principles and then said delay can be condoned-None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless the Court of law or the Tribunal/Appellate Authority found that litigant deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of appeal-Tribunal though aware of these principles but possibly carried away by fact that delay of 2984 days was incapable of condonation-In process Tribunal went about blaming assessee and professionals and equally Department-Tribunal's order did not meet requirement set out in law-Tribunal completely misdirected itself and had taken into account factors, tests and considerations which had no bearing or nexus with issue at hand-Tribunal, therefore, erred in law and on facts in refusing to condone delay-Explanation placed on affidavit was not contested nor Court found that from such explanation , Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound of delay. HELD allowing the appeal: (a) While considering an application for condonation of delay no strait-jacket formula is prescribed to come to the conclusion if sufficient and good grounds have been made out or not. Each case has to be weighed from its facts and the circumstances in which the party acts and behaves. From the conduct, behaviour and attitude of the appellant it cannot be said that it had been absolutely callous and negligent in prosecuting the matter; (b) Justice can be done only when the matter is fought on merits and in accordance with law rather than to dispose it of on such technicalities and that too at the threshold; (c) Unless malafides are writ large on the conduct of the party, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it on such technicalities. Apart from the above, the appellant would not have gained in any manner whatsoever, by not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. It is also worth noticing that delay was also not that huge, which could not have been condoned, without putting the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urts and held the following principal must be kept in mind while considering the application for condonation of delay; (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. (ii) The terms sufficient cause should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate cause of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that there is no prejudice which will be caused to the department as the assessee has already moved an application for settlement of present dispute and payment of taxes. In support, reliance was placed on the Hon ble Delhi High Court s decision in case of HL Malhotra Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Circle-12, New Delhi (ITA No. 211/2020 CM Appeals 32045-32047/2020 dated 22nd December, 2020) wherein delay of 498 days in filing was condoned by the Hon ble Delhi High Court and it was held that in absence of anything male fide or deliberate delay as a dilatory tactic, the Court should normally condone the delay as the intent is always to promote substantial justice following the Hon ble Supreme Court decisions in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Anr. Vs Mst. Katiji and others (1987) 2 SCC 107 and N. Balakrishnan Vs M. Krishnamurthy 1998 (7) SCC 123. 8. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that there is a substantial delay of 515 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee and the application and the affidavit so filed by the assessee company does not reflect any reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for the delay in filing the present appeal. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. 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. Another principle laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court is 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 a non-deliberate delay. It was also held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that there is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of male fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. In the instant case, applying the same principles, we find that there is no culpable negligence or malafide on the part of the assessee in delayed filing of the present appeal and it does not stand to benefit by resorting to such delay more so considering the fact that it has applied for settlement of present dispute and payment of appropriate taxes. Therefore, in the factual matrix of the present case, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
