9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee-trust on the same date. The receiver of the assessee trust had not opened the E-mail ID where the order was delivered. Shri Umesh Shah, CA of the assessee-trust found from ITBA portal that the assessment order was passed on 5.03.2024 for assessment year 2022-23. On further checking the status of application for the registration of the assessee-trust, it was found that the same was rejected by Ld. CIT(E). If the date of downloading the said order is considered, there is no delay in filing the present appeal. It is also stated that in the affidavit that the assessee is an old trust who was granted registration u/s 12A on 30.03.1997, hence there cannot be malafide intention to file appeal belatedly. It is also stated that exemption u/s 11 was granted to the assessee in the past and therefore the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional and assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time. It is also mentioned that the CBDT has extended the time limit for filing the application for registration u/s 12A and approval u/s 80G till 30.06.2024 vide Circular No.7/2024, dated 25.04.2024. Accordingly, no prejudice would be caused to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05.03.2022 and if the date of filing is reckoned from the above date, there is no delay. It is further stated that the assessee is a very old trust and was given registration u/s 12A on 13.03.2021. It is stated that there was no malafide intention to file belatedly. It is also stated that the delay was not intentional and assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time. 6. On the other hand, learned Commissioner of Income Tax - Departmental Representative (Ld. CIT-DR) for the Revenue stated that the reasons given by the assessee would not constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 253(5) of the Act. He has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi & Ors (supra). After considering the submissions of the Ld. AR and the objection by the Ld. CIT-DR, we find that the primary reason given by the assessee for the delay is that the Chartered Accountant came to know about the rejection of the application only while checking the status of assessment order for AY.2022-23. Had he not verified the status of the assessment order for AY.2022-23; he would not have found the order of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that it was a case of gross negligence and want of due diligent on the part of the respondent. There was no sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter relied on its own earlier decisions cited supra where the conduct of the parties in preferring appeals beyond the time prescribed has not been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In various cases, it has been observed that in absence of reasonable and satisfactory cause or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. 7. In the case of P. K. Ramachandran (supra) it was observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigor when the statue so prescribes and the court have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its decision in case of Basawaraj (supra) wherein it was observed and held by the Court that discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. It also observed that the expression "sufficient cause" cannot be lib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. If some similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. If an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group or a wrong decision has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior Court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. The Hon'ble Court summarized the law on the subject issue by stating that where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation of time, the applicant has to explain as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court within the limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l upon technical considerations and if the delay is not deliberate, it ought to be condoned. Notwithstanding the above, howsoever, liberal approach is adopted in condoning the delay, existence of 'sufficient cause' for not filing the appeal in time, is a condition precedent for exercising the discretionary power to condone the delay. The phrases 'liberal approach', 'justice- (1987) 2 SCC 107 = AIR 1987 SC 1353 oriented approach' and cause for the advancement of 'substantial justice' cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow stale matters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and re-opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act." 16. After discussion of various cases in its order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Para 26 has summed up the law laid down by it as under: "26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that: (i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; (ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
