CIT(A) can condone delay in filing of appeal if sufficient cause exist

Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual, filed the return income of Rs. 10,60,110/- on 30/11/2014. Assessment order dated 29/12/2016 has been passed against the assessee by making an addition of Rs. 54,82,927/-on the ground that the assessee has failed to produce any evidence in support of claim of ‘duty on license fees’. Further addition of Rs.12 lacs has been made on the ground that, the assessee has not submitted confirmation in respect of unsecured loans.

As against the assessment order dated 29/12/2016, the assessee has filed an appeal u/s 250 of CIT(A) with a delay of 10 days. As per Section 249(2) of the Act appeal shall be presented within 30 days to the CIT(A) which can be condoned by the CIT(A) u/s 249(3) of the Act if he satisfies that the appellant on sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the said period. The assessee has produced medical certificate dated 08/12/2017 before the CIT(A) for condoning the delay in filing of Appeal which is for the period 25/01/2017 to 08/12/2017. But the CIT(A) observed that there is no iota of establishment which could establish the bonafide of the claim of the assessee for the period of delay from 08/02/2017 to 14/02/2017 (07days) backed by any evidence.

ITAT relied on the finding of the Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan V. M. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998 SC 3222 and held that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and decide the appeal on merit after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the sides. The Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan V. M. Krishnamurthy (supra) held as under:

“11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for laundering the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.

12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words ‘sufficient cause’ under section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain V. Kuntal Kumari, AIR 1969 SC 575 and State of West Bengal V. the Administrator, Howah Muni-capacity, AIR 1972 SC 749.”

To Read Judgment Download PDF Given Below: