9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances of the case as well as on the subject, the learned Pr. CIT has erred in passing u/s 263 without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2. Even otherwise on the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as on law on the subject, the learned Pr. CIT has erred in passing the order u/s 263 by invoking of Section 263 of the Act, although the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. It is therefore prayed that above order passed by Pr. CIT u/s 263 may please be quashed or modified as your honours deem it proper. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before in the course of hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T u/s 263 on 27.03.2022 before ITAT. He accordingly filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) on 28.04.2023 and also filed appeal belatedly before the Hon'ble ITAT on 18.05.2023. 4. The Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that assessee has explained that there was sufficient cause/reason in filing appeal late. Hence, the delay may be condoned in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax - Departmental Representative (Ld. CIT-DR) for the Revenue strongly opposed the request for condonation of delay. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the reasons given by the assessee would not constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 253(3) of the Act. 6. We have heard both pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 2018 (SC), dated 08.04.2024, it has been held that condonation of delay should not be granted only on the ground that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. The reason given by the assessee in the present case is not adequate or enough and also looks bonafide on its part. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj (supra) held that it is a settled legal position that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of limitation be put to litigation. The object is to put an end to every legal remedy and to have a fixed period of life for every litigation as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. Even public policy requires that there should be an end to the litigation otherwise it would be a dichotomy if the litigation is made immortal vis-a-vis the litigating parties i.e. human beings, who are mortals." 10. It has also discussed the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (supra) relied upon by Ld. AR, and held that the phrases "liberal approach", "justice-oriented approach" and "cause of advancement of substantial justice" cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation. For ready reference of equality, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time; (iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally; (iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Shri Varun Agarwal was not aware of the direct appeal to ITAT against the order passed u/s 263 of the Act. Such explanation is not believable and acceptable. Such assertion in only a feeble attempt to explain away the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. It is also stated that CA, Shri Varun Agarwal who was not aware of the direct taxes to file appeal before ITAT. Subsequently, the he consulted another CA, Shri Rasesh Shah & Co., who advised him to file belated appeal against the order passed u/s 263. The assessee has not given any written confirmation or affidavit of Shri Varun Agarwal, CA to support his claim. It is thus crystal clear that assessee was grossly negligent, inactive and casual in filing of appeal. Such negligent, casual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
