9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeals by the asseessees before the ITAT, namely, ITA Nos. 2197 & 2198/Hyd/2018 - 1 day delay in each appeal, ITA No. 617/Hyd/2020 - 248 days delay and ITA No. 742/Hyd/2020 - 348 days delay. On perusal of affidavits filed by the assessees, we find that there were reasonable causes, which prevented them to file the appeals within the stipulated time. Case law Collector Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & Ors, 1987 AIR 1353 (SC) and University of Delhi Vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 9488 & 9489/2019 dated 17 December, 2019, hold that such a delay; supported by cogent reasons, deserves to be condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessees impugned delays are neither intentional nor delib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecide various grounds of appeal of the assessee on merits. Accordingly, the CIT(A) is directed to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessees and thereafter decide the appeals on merits. Our view is supported by the following judgements: 5.1. The judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiju and others, [1987]167 ITR 471, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting s. 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on "merits". The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that the 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." 5.2. The decision in the case of CIT Vs. K.F. Bioplant (P) Ltd., (Bom) 233 Taxman 74, wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held as under: "8. We have considered the application for condonation of delay keeping in mind the following observations of the Apex Court in State of M.P. v. Pradeep Kumar [2000] 7 SCC 372: 'It is true that the pristine maxim "Vigilantibus Non Dormientiobus Jura Subveniunt (Law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
