1. Introduction

The case of Sri Suhas Suresh Shet v. Income Tax Officer adjudicated by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bangalore Bench on April 5, 2022, serves as a pivotal reference in the realm of tax law, particularly concerning the condonation of delays in filing appeals. Sri Suhas Suresh Shet, the appellant, challenged orders passed by the CIT(A)-12, Bengaluru, which had levied penalties under sections 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act for non-compliance. The crux of the matter revolved around the appellant's delay in filing appeals against these penalties and the Tribunal's subsequent decision to condone such delays.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The ITAT Bangalore Bench reviewed two appeals filed by Sri Suhas Suresh Shet against penalty orders dated September 22, 2021, under sections 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act. The appellant had filed these appeals significantly late—591 days and 775 days respectively—beyond the statutory thirty-day limit. The Tribunal, invoking established legal principles and precedents, found that the appellant demonstrated a "sufficient cause" for the delay, primarily attributing it to professional negligence by the authorized representative. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay, allowing the appeals to be heard on their merits.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

The Tribunal extensively referenced key judgments that outline the principles for condoning delays in legal proceedings:

• Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) - Emphasized a liberal and pragmatic approach towards condoning delays to serve substantial justice.
• CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) - Highlighted that absence of deliberate delay and presence of reasonable cause warrant condonation.
• People Education and Economic Development Society (PEEDS) v. ITO (100 ITD 87) - Demonstrated that even prolonged delays could be condoned if justified by sufficient cause.
• Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafa Academy & others (Civil Appeal Nos. 8183 - 8184 of 2013) - Reinforced the judiciary's role in advancing substantial justice through liberal condonation.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

The Tribunal’s legal reasoning centered on balancing technical adherence to procedural timelines with the overarching need for justice. Key points include:

• Substantial Justice vs. Technicality: The Tribunal prioritized substantial justice over rigid adherence to deadlines, especially in the absence of deliberate negligence.
• Liberal Interpretation of "Sufficient Cause": Aligning with precedents, the Tribunal adopted a liberal interpretation of "sufficient cause" to accommodate unforeseen delays.
• No Counter-Affidavit from Revenue: The absence of a counter-affidavit from the Revenue reinforced the appellant's position, strengthening the case for condonation.

3.3. Impact

This judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that justice is not denied due to procedural lapses, provided there is a reasonable explanation for delays. Future cases involving late appeals may draw heavily on this precedent, encouraging legal representatives to present valid causes for any delays and assuring litigants that procedural mistakes can be rectified in the interest of justice.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

5. Conclusion

The judgment in Sri Suhas Suresh Shet v. Income Tax Officer reaffirms the judiciary's role in ensuring that technical barriers do not obstruct the path to justice. By adopting a liberal approach towards condoning delays, especially in the absence of deliberate negligence, the Tribunal ensures that litigants are not unfairly penalized for procedural missteps. This fosters a more equitable legal environment where the merits of a case take precedence over rigid timelines, thereby enhancing the accessibility and fairness of judicial proceedings.