TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 683X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment year 2019-20 for the reason that the registration application was rejected by the learned CIT exemption due to procedural lapse i.e. non-compliance of the notice issued by the learned CIT exemption. To our understanding, the assessee should not suffer merely on account of non-compliance particularly in a situation when its activities are genuine. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we set aside the issue to the file of the learned CIT exemption for fresh adjudication - Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. No. 228/Ahd/2021 - - - Dated:- 13-4-2022 - Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr And Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr For the Appellant : Shri Vart ik Chokshi, Shri Biren Shah Shri G. M. Thakor, A.R. For the Respondent : Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT. D.R. ORDER PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JM: The appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad ( CIT(E) in short) dated 16.04.2019 regarding rejection of approval under s. 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act in short) . 2. At the outset, the learned AR ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the documentary evidence. Accordingly, the learned DR opposed to condone the delay occurred in filing the appeal by the assessee. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Under the provisions of the Act, there is a time limit specified under the respective section of the Act for filing the appeal against the finding of the specified authority. However, the provisions of the Act also provides relaxation to the parties, if failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time, if there was the sufficient cause which prevented the assessee/party in doing so. It is the trite law that the Hon ble Courts time and again in the series of cases have held that the expression sufficient cause should be interpreted to advance substantial justice. Therefore, advancement of substantial justice is the prime factor while considering the reasons for condoning the delay. In this regard we note that the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT reported in 280 ITR 357 has held that : 3. The Supreme Court in Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798held as under : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liberal construction. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Appellate Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the reasons given by the assessee for the delay. 5.1 The assessee, in the present case, has filed the affidavit, explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before us. However, the Revenue has not filed any counter-affidavit to deny the allegation made by the assessee. 5.2 It is also important to note that Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) laid down certain principles for considering the condonation petition for filing the appeal which are reproduced hereunder: (1) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late (2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown at 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. (3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though the Tribunal's view that there was no question of limitation in such cases, was not correct yet the AAC was right in condoning the delay and entertaining the appeal. From the above, we note that the Hon ble Madras High Court in the above case was pleased to condone the delay for 20 years approximately by holding that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. The delay in the instant case is just of 838 number of days which cannot be considered to be inordinate or excessive in comparison to the delay of 7330 days approximately. 6.1 In view of the above we are of the opinion that when there is sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation, the delay has to be condoned irrespective of the duration/period of the delay. In this case, the non-filing of an affidavit by the Revenue for opposing the condonation of delay itself is sufficient for condoning the delay of 838 number of days. Thus, we condone the delay of 838 days in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. 7. The only issue raised by the assessee is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
