Skip to main content

Condonation of delay caused due to human error

Prashanth Projects Ltd vs. DCIT

Human interaction is influenced by human nature. Inherent in human nature is the likelihood of error. Therefore, the adage “to err is human”. Thus, the power to condone delay while applying the law of limitation. This power of condonation is only in view of human fallibility. The laws of nature are not subject to human error, thus beyond human correction. In fact, the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradip Kumar 2000(7) SCC 372 has observed to the effect that although the law assists the vigilant, an unintentional lapse on the part of the litigant would not normally close the doors of adjudication so as to be permanently closed, as it is human to err

Condonation of delay: An appeal wrongly filed before the AO and not CIT(A) is an unintentional lapse of the assessee. The AO ought to have returned the appeal to enable the assessee to take corrective steps. The likelihood of error is inherent in human nature The power of condonation is in view of human fallibility and must be exercised in cases of bona fide lapses
(i) It is an undisputed position that the appeal from order dated 31st December, 2007 of the Assessing Officer was prepared and filed in the prescribed Proforma viz. Form No.35. It was addressed to CIT(A). However, by mistake the same was tendered to the office of the Assessing Officer and the office of the Assessing Officer also accepted the same. In fact, as the appeal pertained to the CIT(A) and not its office, the Assessing Officer ought to have immediately returned the appeal which was filed in the office of the Assessing Officer. This would have enabled the appellant to take appropriate steps and file the appeal with the office of the CIT(A). It is not the case of the Revenue that the appeal addressed to the CIT(A) was not filed with the Office of the Assessing Officer on 8th February, 2008 i.e. within the period of limitation. In case, the Assessing Officer had returned the appeal immediately to the appellant or had forwarded it to the office of the CIT(A) as would be expected of the State no delay would have taken place. This would have resulted in the appeal being considered on merits. Further, from the application made for stay on 19th August, 2008 as well as from the order dated 12th November, 2008 passed thereon, it is very clear that the appellant as well as the department bonafide proceeded on the basis that its appeal before the CIT(A) is pending. The lapse on the part of the assessee was unintentional. Further, the analogy made in the impugned order with nature is inappropriate. Human interaction is influenced by human nature. Inherent in human nature is the likelihood of error. Therefore, the adage “to err is human”. Thus, the power to condone delay while applying the law of limitation. This power of condonation is only in view of human fallibility. The laws of nature are not subject to human error, thus beyond human correction. In fact, the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradip Kumar 2000(7) SCC 372 has observed to the effect that although the law assists the vigilant, an unintentional lapse on the part of the litigant would not normally close the doors of adjudication so as to be permanently closed, as it is human to err. In this case, we have found that it is an unintentional lapse on the part of the appellant. We are, therefore, of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable and the question as framed is answered in favour of the appellant assessee.

(ii) However, the appellant should have taken care to ensure that the appeal is correctly filed with the office of the CIT(A). Although, we are satisfied that there was a mistake / error on the part of appellant in filing it with the wrong office, the appellant has not been able to explain the delay between 23rd March, 2010 to 12th May, 2011 i.e. the period when it addressed a communication to the CIT(A) for hearing of its appeal till the date it requested the Assessing Officer to transfer the appeal to CIT(A). The explanation stated across the bar is that it was pursuing its appeal but no particulars are given. Therefore, although we set aside orders dated 4th September, 2013 of the Tribunal and 4th August, 2011 of the CIT(A) and restore the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh disposal in accordance with law, it is subject to the appellant paying all tax dues payable for the subject Assessment Year, if not already paid and additionally on payment of costs of Rs.10,000/by a pay order drawn in the name of “The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax15, Mumbai” within a period of four weeks from today.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376
2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551
3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467
4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298
5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567)



5.The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i)Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii)Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a)Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b)Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii)Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv)Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v)Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects…

Delay - condon - limitation

The proof by sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of the extraordinary restriction vested in the court. What counts is not the length of the delay but the sufficiency of the cause and shortness of the delay is one of the circumstances to be taken into account in using the discretion.

Supreme Court of India
State Of Nagaland vs Lipok Ao & Ors on 1 April, 2005
Author: A Pasayat
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia
           CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.)  484 of 2005

PETITIONER:
State of Nagaland

RESPONDENT:
Lipok AO & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/04/2005

BENCH:
ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) 4612 of 2003 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Leave granted.

The State of Nagaland questions correctness of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench refusing to condone the delay by rejecting the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the 'Limitation Act') and conseque…

Passport - DRT - power to impound - High Court

1) Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D.Ramarathnam. Asst. Passport Officer, 1967 (3) SCR 52
2) Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 (1) SCC 248
3) Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. v. Grapco Industries Ltd., (1994) 4 SCC 710
4) Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2008 (3) SCC 674
5) Damji Valaji Shah & another Vs. L.I.C. of India & others [AIR 1966 SC 135]
6) Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & others [1999 (7) SCC 76]
7) Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others [AIR 1999 SC 3125]
8) Sanjeev R.Apte v. I.F.C.I. Ltd., and others, 2008 (154) DLT 77
9) Smt.Annai Jayabharathi v. The Debt Recovery Tribunal & Anr., CDJ 2005 Ker HC 171
10) Allahabad Bank v. Radhakrishna Maity, AIR 1999 SC 3426
11) Ramalinga v. Radha, 2011 (4) CTC 481
12) Sinnaswami Chettiar v. Aligi Goundan and others, AIR 1924 Madras 893 (OVERRULED)
13) Nallagatti Goundan v. Ramana Gounda and others, AIR 1925 Madras 170
14) Income Tax Officer v. M.K.Mohammad…