TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do with the impugned order passed directing the learned Assessing Officer to disallow the interest paid subsequent to 4/12/2014. The disallowance in the impugned order is very clear and loud. Merely because a subsequent point of time the learned Assessing Officer passed an order dated 14/2/2014, it does not mean that the assessee has a good case. Even if we believe that the orders dated 14/2/2014 and 17/2/2014 received by the assessee on 14/3/2014 were capable of misleading the assessee, still the assessee cannot harp on that point because the impugned order was clear in its import that the interest for a period subsequent to 4/12/2004 was clearly directed to be disallowed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 14/8/2013 to challenge which, the appeal time was only available till 5/9/2013. Assessee cannot have the benefit of any confusion that is likely to arise subsequent to this 5/9/2013, because the cause of action for the grievance of the assessee is the order dated 14/8/2013 and, as a matter of fact, is not at all the order dated 10/3/2017 rectifying the order dated 17/2/2014 under section 154 of the Act. Assessee had forgotten one basic thing before citing the orders dated 14/2/2014, 17/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow the same because till such date the assessee had a valid banking license, and interest for the period thereafter has to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act . 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 14/08/2013, assessee preferred this appeal before us with a delay of 1529 days. In the appeal assessee challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in remanding the matter to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to verify as to whether any interest was provided after cancellation of the banking license, in spite of the submissions made to the effect that not just cancellation of the banking license, but the society came under liquidation by the date and no interest was provided after the date of liquidation in accordance with the provisions of law. By way of additional grounds assessee challenged the initiation of proceedings under section 147 when the earlier order was passed and the entire material was before him and there was no fresh material obtained by the learned Assessing Officer for issuing the notice. 5. Insofar as the delay is concerned, in the affidavit filed in support of the prayer to condone the delay, it is stated that the order dated 14/08/2013 passed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15/3/2017 and the learned Assessing Officer passing the order dated 14/3/2014 which resulted in demand. He placed reliance on the decisions reported in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and Surya General Traders vs. CTO 1997 (4) ALD 439 for the principle that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late and that when substantial Justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. 7. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that the reasons mentioned by the assessee for the condonation of delay in filing this appeal are totally irrelevant, because in the appeal the assessee challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in remanding the matter to the file of the learned Assessing Officer, for which the assessee need not wait till the consequential orders were passed. If really the assessee is aggrieved of the consequential orders, the assessee could have as well challenged the consequential orders in the appeal. Ld. DR submitted that the stand taken by the assessee is inconsistent because the consequential order is relevant to challenge the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act was passed on 8/3/2013 disallowing a sum of Rs. 22,18,70,175/-. Assessee s appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order dated 8/3/2013 was allowed in part by the Ld. CIT(A) by order dated 14/8/2013 holding that the entire interest cannot be disallowed as the assessee was having RBI license till 4/12/2014, and therefore, on this premise, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the learned Assessing Officer to disallow interest paid post 4/12/2004. This order is under appeal before us now. 10. Subsequently, learned Assessing Officer passed two orders, namely, on 14/2/2014 giving effect to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and on 17/2/2014 giving effect to the order of the ITAT and arriving at the loss of Rs. 9,06,34,863/-. Learned Assessing Officer, however, rectified the order dated 17/2/2014 under section 154 of the Act on 10/3/2017 giving rise to a demand of Rs. 6,26,60,765/-. Learned Assessing Officer said to have addressed a letter dated 15/3/2017 in respect of the demand for the assessment year 2004-05 and 2005-06, which according to the record of the learned Assessing Officer was served on the assessee on 14/7/2017, but according to the assessee there is no such letter. The officia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate for filing the appeal was by 4/11/2013. Even if we believe that the orders dated 14/2/2014 and 17/2/2014 received by the assessee on 14/3/2014 were capable of misleading the assessee, still the assessee cannot harp on that point because the impugned order was clear in its import that the interest for a period subsequent to 4/12/2004 was clearly directed to be disallowed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 14/8/2013 to challenge which, the appeal time was only available till 5/9/2013. Assessee cannot have the benefit of any confusion that is likely to arise subsequent to this 5/9/2013, because the cause of action for the grievance of the assessee is the order dated 14/8/2013 and, as a matter of fact, is not at all the order dated 10/3/2017 rectifying the order dated 17/2/2014 under section 154 of the Act. 14. Whether or not the order dated 10/3/2017 and the letter dated 15/3/2017 were served on the assessee are totally irrelevant insofar as the time to file this appeal is concerned. Such a time to file the appeal against the order dated 14/8/2013 was barred by limitation from 4/11/2013 itself. The assessee cannot be allowed to agitate that with the fond hope that the learned Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation. 26. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly. 13. Recently in Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai[19], the learned Judges referred to the pronouncement in Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil[20] wherein it has been opined that a distinction must be made between a case where the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... situation. Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. 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 the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. 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. We have painfully re-stated the same. 16. In view of the facts and law discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no sufficient cause made out by the assessee to condone the delay and the reasons stated for the delay are not at all relevant insofar as this appeal challenging the order dated 14/8/2013 is concerned. We, therefore, decline to condone the delay and consequently the appeal stands dismissed. Since the delay is not condoned, discussion on merit does not arise. 17. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
