The Visakhapatnam bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has ruled that the delay shall be condoned if there is sufficient bonafide cause and not due to the negligence of the assessee.
The assessee, Bala Tripura Sundari Boppana submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] failed to appreciate the submissions adequately and did not provide valid reasons for rejecting the condonation request.
Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here
It was pleaded that the delay, caused by genuine and unavoidable circumstances, warranted condonation in the interest of justice. Conversely, the Department opposed the condonation, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural timelines.
The bench, in its order, stated the judiciary’s role in promoting substantial justice, emphasizing that “sufficient cause” for delay, as enshrined in various provisions of the Income Tax Act and analogous laws, must be interpreted liberally to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Referring to the Supreme Court‘s landmark ruling in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, the tribunal reiterated that courts must prioritize substantial justice over technicalities. It observed that delays due to bona fide reasons should be condoned to ensure fair adjudication, provided no mala fide intent or dilatory tactics are involved.
Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here
The bench of K. Narasimha Chary and S. Balakrishan observed that “… while considering matters relating to the condonation of delay, judicious and liberal approach is to be adopted. If “sufficient cause” is found to exist, which is bona-fide one, and not due to negligence of the assessee, the delay needs to condoned in such cases. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply law in a meaningful manner, which sub-serves the end of justice- that being the life purpose of the existence of the institution of the courts. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. This means that there should be no malafide or dilatory tactics. Sufficient cause should receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice.”
Considering these, the ITAT condoned the delay and remanded the case to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee while clarifying that its decision to condone the delay should not influence the merits of the case. The appeal was thus allowed for statistical purposes.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
