Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.7 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693, by referring various to earlier decisions of Superior Courts and held the following principal must be kept in mind while considering the application for condonation of delay,

(i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non- pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.

14. Having regard to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B. Madhuri Goud vs. B. Damodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693 and the principles laid down therein the delay condone by the ld. CIT(A) is found to be just and proper so as not to warrant interference. Thus this ground of appeal preferred by the revenue is found to be devoid of any merit and hence dismissed.

15. The Revenue has further raised grounds in regard to the decision made by the Ld. First Appellate Authority in holding the excise duty subsidy as capital receipt. It is the case of the Revenue that the same was received by the assessee on revenue account and not for the purpose of acquiring any capital asset. The Revenue has further joined issue to this effect that the above ground raised by the assessee as an additional ground for treatment of excise subsidy as capital receipt whereas the same was itself shown as revenue in nature, by the assessee in the AYs 2010-11 to 2014-15 and in the instant AY 2015-16, particularly when no revised return of income was filed by the assessee for treating the excise subsidy as capital receipt.