Case Law Details
Ultrasound Education & Research Foundation Vs DCIT (ITAT Lucknow)
ITAT find that ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals just by holding that there was a delay in filing of the appeals by 281 days and 288 days in the two appeals respectively. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N Balakrishnan vs. Krishnamurthy (Supra) has held that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties and rather they are meant to see that parties do not resort dilatory tactics but seek the remedy promptly. The Hon’ble Court has noted that the object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury and though the law of limitation fixes a life span to such legal remedy but there is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is deliberate. The Hon’ble court has further held that the words sufficient cause u/s 5 of Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. Further in the case of Nand Kishore vs. State of Punjab (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the length of delay is not a material to condone the delay and rather the cause of delay is to be considered for condonation of the delay and has condoned the delay of 31 years.We find that assessee had explained the reason of delay to ld. CIT(A) and by deliberately filing belated appeal the assessee cannot be expected to gain.
In view of these circumstances and judicial precedents we direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing of the appeals and decide the appeals on merits after giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee of being heard.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
1. These are two appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of ld. CIT(A) both dated 20.10.2021.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
