The court emphasizes that substantial justice must prevail over technical procedural delays, particularly regarding fee impositions under tax provisions prior to legislative amendments.

ORDER

PER BENCH

All these appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders passed by the CIT(A), which is as under:-

2. The issue involved in all these appeals is common except for the figures, hence these appeals are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.

3. At the outset, it is observed that there was delay of 645 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that during the relevant period Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020 extended the period of limitation with effect from 15.03.2022 to 28.02.2022 and, therefore, the Ld.AR submitted that the present appeals has been filed before this Tribunal on 10.11.2023 thereby causing a net effective delay of 530 days.

4. He thus humbly prayed that this Tribunal may take a lenient and compassionate approach and condone the delay of 530 days in filing the present appeal against the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) passed under section 250 of the Act and hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice.

5. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji AND OTHERS reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 , in the case of CONCORD OF INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs SMT. NIRMALA DEVI AND OTHERS reported in 118 ITR 507 and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S. MELA RAM & SONS Vs CIT (PUNJAB) reported in 29 ITR 607. He also relied on the decision of recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs.WEST BENGAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENTFINANCE CORP, where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that delay should be condoned and matters to be heard on merits, when the stakes involved are high.

6. The Ld.DR though objected to the condonation of delay vehemently could not bring out anything on record to establish any malafide on behalf of the assessee in causing such delay to file the present appeals before this Tribunal.

7. On merits of the case, the Ld.DR submitted that the issue has not been considered by the Ld.CIT(A) who dismissed the appeals in limine by not condoning the delay caused in filing the appeals. However, he admitted to the fact that the merits of the case is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of v. UOI reported in [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252. However he submitted that the revenue preferred SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and that he relied on the orders passed by the authorities below.

8. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. On merit, the issue is in favour of assessee as per the ratio of Hon`ble Karnataka High Court in case of Fatehraj Singhvi v. UOI (supra). But there is a technical defect as in all the appeals before us are not filed within the period of limitation. The assessee has filed an affidavit establishing the cause for the inability to file the present appeals. Revenue has not denied the averments made by the assessee in the affidavit.

9. The Ld. DR submitted that there was inordinate delay of 530 days and the reason given by the assessee for filing the appeal belatedly cannot be considered as bona fide. It was submitted that the assessee was very negligent in its action and it could have been vigilant to avoid delay