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.
2. The ld. AR, at the outset invited our attention to the order of ld. CIT(A) and submitted that ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee by not condoning the delay in filing the appeals. The ld. AR submitted that the reasons for delay in filing of the appeals before ld. CIT(A) was well explained to ld. CIT(A) and affidavit of the accountant were also filed with him but the ld. CIT(A) without going into the merits of the case has dismissed the appeals of the assessee.
3. The ld. AR submitted that assessee had filed the return of income as an association of person and the returns were processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act and aggregate income was considered as deemed total income u/s. 115JC of the Act and tax @ 30% was computed. It was submitted that appellant was unaware of such processing of return until it received a call from its tax counsel that demand was reflecting on income tax portal. It was submitted that on the return of income, the email of accountant of the assessee was mentioned and accountant of the assessee was not in the town but was in a village with his parents where no internet facility was available and therefore he could not check his email account. It was submitted that when he returned back he got busy with his schedule and inadvertently forgot to check his old emails. It was submitted that due to these reasons, there was delay in filing the appeal before ld. CIT(A). It was argued that the delay in filing the appeals was not intentional and therefore ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and should have decided the issue on merits. Reliance in this respect was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N Balakrishnan vs. M Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998 SC 3222 and further reliance was placed on the judgment of Nand Kishore vs. State of Punjab (1995) 6 SCC 614 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court had condoned the delay of 31 years. Reliance was placed on further judgments of different benches of the Tribunal and it was argued that since the delay in filing the appeal before ld. CIT(A) was not intentional, therefore the ld. CIT(A) may be directed to hear the appeals on merits.
4. The ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the order of ld. CIT(A) but fairly agreed that the ld. CIT(A) should have decided the issue on merits.
5. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We 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.
6. 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.
7. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 31/05/2022)
