##PAGE1##

ITA No.410, 748,777 &778/CHD/2025

A.Y.2013-4 to 2016-17

2

of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated

16.09.2024, 26.05.2023, 26.05.2023 and 26.05.2023 passed

for assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17 respectively.

2. The Registry has pointed out that ITA No. 410/CHD/2025

is time barred by 110 days whereas other appeals, namely, ITA

748, 777 and 778/CHD/2025 are time barred by 634 days.

3. The assessee has filed application for condonation of

delay. According to the assessee, this delay happened on

account of non-prosecution of litigation by the earlier counsel.

We have directed the ld. counsel for the assessee to submit

correspondence made with the earlier counsel for authorizing

him to prosecute the litigation. He has produced some

communication whereby Bank has submitted relevant

documents to the counsel but he did not take proper steps.

The ld. counsel for the assessee prayed that delay in filing the

appeals be condoned and they be decided on merit.

3.1 The ld. DR, on the other hand submitted that assessee is

a renowned Bank and it should be more vigilant about

prosecuting its Income Tax litigation. There is no plausible

ITA No.410, 748,777 &778/CHD/2025

A.Y.2013-4 to 2016-17

3

explanation given by the assessee for not filing the appeals in

time.

4. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates that the

Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum

of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is

satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting

it within that period. This expression sufficient cause

employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-

section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides

powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing

the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been

used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever

interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen

for consideration before Hon’ble High Court as well as before

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then, Hon’ble Court were

unanimous in their conclusion that this expression is to be

used liberally. We may make reference to the following

observations of the Hon’ble Supreme court from the decision

in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji &

Others, 1987 AIR 1353:

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

ITA No.410, 748,777 &778/CHD/2025

A.Y.2013-4 to 2016-17

4

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.

3. "Every day’s delay must be explained" does not mean

that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not

every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine

must be applied in a 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 the other side

cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being

done because of a 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. A litigant does not stand to

benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a 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

ITA No.410, 748,777 &778/CHD/2025

A.Y.2013-4 to 2016-17

5

and is expected to do so.

5. Similarly, we would like to make reference to

authoritative pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC

123 dated 03.09.1998. It reads as under:

“Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right

of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not

resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their rem