Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987
5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material on
record. After going through the reasons mentioned by the ld.
Counsel for the assessee, we find that there is sufficient cause on
the part of the assessee in not filing the appeal within the
prescribed time. It is also pertinent to note that the addition on
the basis of which penalty was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) has been
deleted by the ITAT in quantum appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and
Others reported in 167 ITR 471 had held that when substantial
justice and legal considerations are pitted against each other, the
cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the
other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being
done because of a non-deliberate delay. Ordinarily, a litigant does
not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. Therefore, refusing to
condone the 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. Keeping in view the aforesaid principle of law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the fact that the
additions made in the assessment have been deleted in the
quantum appeal, in our opinion, refusal to condone the delay will
4
ITA No. 844/Hyd/2009
Venkateswara Brandy Shop, Karimnagar..