9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n all the appeals is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeals and dismissed the appeal by passing exparte order. 2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer, DCIT, Centralized Processing Cell - TDS, Vaishali, Ghaziabad has passed the intimation under section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has been located at an interior place in Namakkal District. Against the above order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee has preferred appeals before the ld. CIT(A), Salem. However, there was delay of 1478 days, 1543 days and 1505 days for the assessment years 2013-14 [Q- 2 & Q-3] and 2014-15 [Q-1] respectively in filing appeals. Before the ld. CIT(A), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee is located at far off place in Namakkal District. The Centralized Processing Cell - TDS, Vaishali, Ghaziabad has processed the TDS statement furnished by the assessee under section 200A of the Act and the intimation was communicated by e-mail. Being a remote locality, the assessee could not get the legal opinion as to whether against the intimation communicated by the CPC-TDS appealed before higher forum after consulting with the higher authorities and this process took sufficient time and thereby caused delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A). Under the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there was no negligence on the part of the assessee. 5. The expression 'sufficient cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter; acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in reversional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on whole untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
