AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 26.09.2025, for Assessment Year 2009-10.
The assessee/appellant appearing in person submits that the CIT(A) has dismissed appeal of assessee on the ground of limitation. The assessee submits that admittedly, the appeal was filed before the CIT(A) after a considerable delay of 5419 days. However, the assessee had valid reasons for delay in filing of appeal. He submits that there were multiple criminal proceedings pending against the assessee in different courts viz. Trail Courts, Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The assessee was arrested and was confined to jail. The assessee was not aware of the assessment order for AY 2009-10. Due to multiplicity of criminal proceedings, the assessee was more involved in resolving the criminal cases. The assessee furnished a list of FIRs/criminal complaints/legal proceedings with which the assessee was struggling. The assessee pointed that, he had filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit before the CIT(A) and had also furnished list of criminal cases in which the assessee was tied up. The CIT(A) without considering the hardship which the assessee was facing due to multiple criminal proceedings dismissed appeal of assessee in limine on the ground of limitation. The assessee prayed for an opportunity to make submissions before the CIT(A).
Per contra, Shri Keshav Kishore Anand representing the department vehemently defending the impugned order submitted that there was an inordinate delay of more than 5400 days in filing of appeal by the assessee before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee could not explain compelling circumstances, beyond the control of assessee that prevented the assessee from filing appeal before the CIT(A). He thus, prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee and upholding the impugned order.
Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The CIT(A) has dismissed appeal of the assessee in limine on ground of limitation. Admittedly, the appeal was filed by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority with a delay of 5419 days. The assessee has attributed inordinate delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A) to multiple criminal proceedings pending in various Courts against the assessee. The assessee was purportedly arrested and was confined to jail as well. The assessee has furnished a list of 50 criminal cases which the assessee was defending at various levels of Courts.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in an unequivocal manner has repeatedly held that acceptance of reason explaining delay should be the rule and refusal an exception. By taking a pedantic and hyper technical view the explanation furnished should not be rejected, causing loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates. The expression “sufficient cause” should be liberally construed so as to sub-serve the ends of justice.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, 1998 SCC 7 123 explaining the law on condonation has held:-
“9.It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court.
10.The reason for such a different stance is thus: The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time-limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause.
11.Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to 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. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The 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 rights 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, (1969) 1 SCR 1006 and State of W.B v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality (1972) 1 SCC 366, AIR 1972 SC 749.565
13.It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 has held that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic and hyper technical approach should not be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others, 2002 SCC (3) 195/2002 SCR (2) 77 has held that the expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal derive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide can be imputed to the defaulting party.
Considering entire facts of the case and reason explained by the assessee causing delay in filing of appeal, I am of the view that the assessee has been able to establish that the assessee was prevented for the reason beyond his control for filing of appeal before the CIT(A) in time. Hence, I deem it appropriate to restore appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.