9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the assessee submitted that there was a delay of 30 days in filing of these appeals before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee had filed an affidavit stating the reasons for the delay in filing of these appeals but the ld. CIT(A) without taking cognizance of the same, did not admit these appeals and dismissed them as such. 3. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The assessee has placed on record, the reasons for delay in filing of the appeals as stated before the ld. CIT(A), which is extracted for ready reference:- "The above mentioned appeals are pending before your Honours. There is a delay of 30 days in filing these appeals. 2. I wish to inform you that I am a senior partner in M/s. Shivangi and Latkar, Chartered Accountan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ou to kindly condone the delay of 30 days in filing the appeal. Your Honours will certainly appreciate that; the assessee/appellant should not be put to hardship because of my health problems. I reiterate that the delay in filing the appeal is not on account of negligence or carelessness on the part of the appellant. Further we find that the ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed on record an affidavit filed by the Director of the assessee company, to the effect that the assessee company was aware of the proceedings and developments in the case. The affidavit is extracted for ready reference:- "I Kamala Nirani, Wife of Shri. Murugesh R. Nirani, aged about 48 years, residing at 166, Kulali Cross, Jamkhandi Road, Mudhol - 587313, Dist: Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see further submits that assessee has very good case on merit and is likely to succeed in case the assessee is given opportunity to contest the appeal on merit. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue supported the order of ld. CIT(A). She submitted that the assessee failed to explain the delay before the ld. CIT(A), thereby the delay was not condoned in filing of the appeals and resultantly the appeals were not admitted. 7. After hearing the rival contentions, perusing the material available on record as well as the orders of the authorities below, we hold as follows:- 8. A plain reading of the reasons for the delay before the ld. CIT(A) shows that the assessee was suffering from cardiac problem in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... call for more cautious approach but in the later case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard. The court has to exercise the discretion of the facts of each keeping in mind that in construing the expression 'sufficient cause', the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. 10. We are of the opinion that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the appeals in time before the ld. CIT(A) and the intention of the assessee was not malafide. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that due to serious health ailments it missed the deadline of filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A) by way of filin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lars of his income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income was not clear. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT reported in [2021] 125 taxmann.com 253 (Bombay) wherein a similar issue has been decided by the Hon'ble High Court by framing a question of law, and after taking into consideration, the relevant decision of various High Courts as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, holding as under: "Question No. 3: What is effect of Supreme Court's decision in Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 161 Taxman 218/291 ITR 519 (SC), on issue of non-application of mind when irrelevant portions of printed notices are not struck off? * In Dilip N. Shroff, case (supra) for the Supreme Court, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he orders passed. Here again, prejudice must be caused to the litigant, "except in the case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest but also in the public interest'. [Para 189] * Here, section 271(1)(c) is one such provision. With calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, the provision is mandatory and brooks no trifling with or dilution. For a further precedential prop, Rajesh Kumar v. CIT [2007] 2 SCC 181, may be referred to in which the Apex Court has quoted with approval its earlier judgment in State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei [AIR 1967 SC 1269]. According to it, when by reason of action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
