IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.06.2015 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR AND HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI T.C. (A) Nos.84 to 89 of 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle III (4) Chennai. ... Appellant Vs Shri S.Duraipandi & S.Thalavaipandian (AOP) C/o.CNGSN & Associates, Swathi Court, Flat C & D No.22, Vijayaraghava Road, T.Nagar, Chennai- 600 017. ... Respondent Prayer:- These Tax Case (Appeals) are filed, against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "C" Bench, Chennai dated 08.04.2014 in ITA Nos.2062/Mds/2013, 2063/Mds/2013, 2064/Mds/2013, 2065/Mds/2013, 2066/Mds/2013 and 2067/Mds/2013 respectively. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by K.B.K.VASUKI, J.) All these appeals are filed by Revenue against order of Tribunal, thereby condoning delay of 922 days in filing appeals by assessee for Assessment Years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 before learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2.While Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed appeals filed by assessee before same, with delay of 922 days on ground that delay was not sufficiently explained, Tribunal, after having found that assessee has shown sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals, reversed order of learned CIT(A) and remitted back appeals to learned CIT(A) to decide appeals of assessee on merits. relevant paragraphs of order of Tribunal are extracted hereunder: 7.In background of above fact, we have to consider appeals of assessee. Hon'ble Supreme court of India has time and again held that acceptance of explanation furnished for condonation of delay should be rule and refusal exception more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide can be imputed to defaulting party. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao reported as 2002(3) SCC 195 has held as under: Thus it becomes plain that expression sufficient cause within meaning of Section 5 of Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of Code or any other similar provision should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides is imputable to party. In particular case whether explanation furnished would constitute sufficient cause or not will be dependent upon facts of each case. 3 There cannot be straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting explanation furnished for delay caused in taking steps. But one thing is clear that courts should not proceed with tendency of finding fault with cause shown and reject petition by slipshod order in over-jubilation of disposal drive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be rule and refusal, exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides can be imputed to defaulting party. On other hand, while considering matter courts should not lose sight of fact that by not taking steps within time prescribed valuable right has accrued to other party which should not be lightly defeated by condoning delay in routine-like manner. However, by taking pedantic and hypertechnical view of matter explanation furnished should not be rejected when stakes are high and/or arguable points of facts and law are involved in case, causing enormous loss and irreparable injury to party against whom lis terminates, either by default or inaction and defeating valuable right of such party to have decision on merit. While considering matter, courts have to strike balance between resultant effect of order it is going to pass upon parties either way. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while giving liberal construction to term 'sufficient cause' in case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst.Katiji and others reported as 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held: Any appeal or any application, other than application under any of provisions of Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 may be admitted after prescribed period if appellant or applicant satisfies Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring appeal or making application within such period. 1. Ordinarily litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned highest that 4 can happen is that cause would be decided on merits after hearing parties. 3. Every day s delay must be explained does not mean that pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour s delay, every second s delay? doctrine must be applied in rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. Making justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning delay in institution of appeal. 8.In view of facts and circumstances of present case and law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of considered opinion that appeals of assessee deserve to be allowed. assessee has been able to show sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeals before CIT (Appeals). matter is remitted back to CIT (Appeals) to decide appeals of assessee on merits. CIT (Appeals) while adjudicating appeals on merits shall also take into consideration effect of decision of Tribunal in assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.2223 to 2229/Mds/2012 for Ays 2002-03 to 2008-09 decided on 20- 03-2013. 5 3.The reading of order of Tribunal would reveal that Tribunal has gone in depth into various proceedings that had been undertaken by assessee before approaching Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for pursuing appeals and delay is not on account of inaction on part of assessee, but on account of availing remedies before various forums including before Tribunal, details of which have already been set out in order of Tribunal. Since assessee has not chosen to pursue two parallel proceedings, delay in filing appeals has apparently occurred. 4.In view of such matter, we find no error or infirmity in order so passed by Tribunal, warranting interference by this Court. 5.Hence, all Tax Case Appeals are dismissed. No costs. [R.S.J.] & [ K.B.K.V.J.] 09.06.2015 Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No rk To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, Chennai. 6 R.SUDHAKAR, J. AND K.B.K.VASUKI, J. rk T.C. (A) Nos.84 to 89 of 2015 09.06.2015. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-III (4), Chennai v. S. Duraipandi & S.Thalavaipandian