9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Y. 2019-20. whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the assessee stood dismissed rejecting the explanation rendered in regard to the delay caused to the assessee in filing the said appeal before the CIT(A). Relevant to mention that the merit of the matter has not been considered by the Ld. CIT(A). 2. Before us, the appeal is barred by limitation for one day. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in condoned. 3. The brief facts leading to this case is this that the assessee, an individual, employed in M/s. Evry India Pvt. Ltd. and earned gross total income of Rs. 31,46,189/- from his employment being exercised in India. During the same period, the appellant travelled to M/s. Evry A/S (hereinafter referr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant to mention that the assessee received the intimation on 23.03.2021 and the appeal was preferred before the Ld. CIT (A) on 02.06.2022. After availing the gross period for filing the appeal in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment, in view of covid pandemic there was actual delay found to be 335 days in preferring the appeal. The explanation rendered by the assessee in support of the condonation of the delay was, however, rejected by the Ld.CIT (A) with the following observations. "2. Decision: The reply of the appellant is considered. It is seen that the reason supplied by the appellant for filing the appeal beyond the limitation date has not been backed by any documentary evidence. The appellant has stated that he was under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation date and hence. the reasons which have been put forward to explain the delay are not sufficient. The appellant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition vs MST Katiji and Others 167 ITR 471 wherein the Apex Court held that the delay in preferring the applications for condoning the delay is required to be condoned in the interest of justice liberally so as to advance substantial justice provided that there can be no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides imputable to the parties seeking condonation of delay. However, in the instant case, the inordinate delay is attributable to the gross negligence of the appellant as stated above and not because of some "s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cient cause that prevented the appellant from exercising its legal remedy of filing appeal within that prescribed period of 30 days, delay thereafter cannot be condoned. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the statutory right to appeal which was vested with the appellant was not exercised within the stipulated time u/s 249(3). Thus, this clearly is a case of laches and is directly the result of deliberate inaction on part of the appellant. In view of above, the delay of 335 days in filing of appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown under section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act for the appellants failure to file the appeal within prescribed period of limitation u/s 249(2) of the Income Tax Act r.w. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing so. The documents in regard to payment of tax in Norway and other details in support of such payment was the main documents to be considered by the assessee's advisor in preferring the appeal before the First Appellate Authority, fact whereof needs consideration. It naturally took time particularly considering the situation emancing from covid 19 which was still persistent during the period when the assessee was required to get the details from Norway. Thus no negligence on the part of the assessee is found in preferring the appeal before the First Appellate Authority. 10. We note that such facts require consideration liberally with the pragmatic view to be taken by the Court or any other statutory body. In fact we find sufficient caus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that each application for condonation of delay has to be decided within the framework laid down by this Court. It is further observed that if courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to legislature." 11. The "sufficient cause" in this particular case of Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 mentioned in the above judgment relied upon by the Ld.DR has been said not to be interpreted liberally if negligence, in action or lack of bona fide is attributed to the party. It was further mentioned in the said judgment that the discretion to condone the delay has to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
