ORDER

PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of order dated 03.06.2022 passed by NFAC, Delhi for A.Y. 2017-18.

2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that there is a delay of 601 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has furnished an affidavit in support of the delay explaining the reasons which is scanned and reproduced as under:

3. The Ld.DR though opposed for the condonation of delay could not controvert the submissions made therein.

We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us.

4. The reason that caused delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal was because the assessee was not having access to the mail id mentioned in Form 35 to which all the notices and the impugned order were sent by the office of Ld.CIT(A).

5. It is noted that upon the Auditor being changed by the assessee, the ex-parte order by the Ld.CIT(A) was informed to the assessee.

6. The Ld.AR submitted that immediately the assessee approached the present AR and an appeal was filed before this Tribunal. He prayed that the assessee was under a bonafide belief that, the notices forwarded by assessee to the then tax consultant was being taken cognizance of by the erstwhile tax consultant. He thus prayed for the delay to be condoned as there is no malafide mistake / intention that could be attributable on the assessee in causing the delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal.

7. On the contrary, the Ld.DR though vehemently opposed the condonation of delay was of the opinion that the issue should be decided on merits.

We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us.

8. From the affidavit filed by the assessee, there does not arise any malafide intention on behalf of assessee for not filing the present appeal before this Tribunal.

9. The assessee was not aware about the appellate order being passed ex-parte. In our view, the assessee has made out a reasonable cause for the delay that caused in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. Nothing to establish any such intention has been filed by the revenue before this Tribunal. In our opinion there is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 in support of his contentions.

10. We place reliance on following observations by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 wherein, Hon’ble Court observed as under:-

“The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits". The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy.

And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that :

1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

......................................................1.Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the