9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts and in circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in granting TDS credit only to the extent of INR 2,95,41,737 as against INR 3,56,39,693 claimed by the Appellant in the Return of Income (ROI) filed, thus resulting into the short grant of TDS credit amounting to INR 60,97,956. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing." 2. At the outset the Ld.AR submitted that, there is a delay of about 510 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The application seeking condonation of delay has been filled stating as unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was rejected on 22/02/2025. The Ld.AR submitted that, as the application was pending on the issue, the assessee was under bonafied belief that the assessing officer would rectify the mistake. Based on such bonafide belief, the assessee did not file appeal against the impugned order before this Tribunal, thereby the causing delay of about 510 days. 3.1 The Ld.AR thus prayed for the delay to be condoned as there exist a reasonable and sufficient casue in not preferring appeal before this Tribunal against the impugned order. 3.2 On the contrary, the Ld.DR relied on the order passed by the orders authorities below. We have perused the submissions advance by both sides in the light of record placed before us. 4. It is noted that, considerin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able to the present facts of the case. A similar view was taken by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Venkatadri Traders Ltd. v. CIT (2001) 168 CTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad). 4.4 We also refer to the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) reported in 277 ITR 1 condoned the delay of 180 days when, the appeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4.5 It is also to be noted that the Revenue has not filed any counter-affidavit opposing the application of the assessee for condonation of delay. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sandhya Rani Sarkar vs. Smt. Sudha Rani Debi reported in AIR 1978 SC 537 held that, non ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471. Reliance is placed on following observations by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 wherein, Hon'ble Court observed as under:- "The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits". The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
