The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Prashanth Projects Ltd vs. DCIT while allowing an appeal for condonation of delay said it is an undisputed position that the appeal from order dated 31st December, 2007 of the Assessing Officer was prepared and filed in the prescribed Proforma viz. Form No.35. It was addressed to CIT(A). However, by mistake the same was tendered to the office of the Assessing Officer and the office of the Assessing Officer also accepted the same. Human interaction is influenced by human nature. Inherent in human nature is the likelihood of error. Therefore, the adage “to err is human”. Thus, the power to condone delay while applying the law of limitation. This power of condonation is only in view of human fallibility. The laws of nature are not subject to human error, thus beyond human correction. In fact, the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradip Kumar 2000(7) SCC 372 has observed to the effect that although the law assists the vigilant, an unintentional lapse on the part of the litigant would not normally close the doors of adjudication so as to be permanently closed, as it is human to err.
Article referred: http://itatonline.org/archives/prashanth-projects-ltd-vs-dcit-bombay-high-court-condonation-of-delay-an-appeal-wrongly-filed-before-the-ao-and-not-cita-is-an-unintentional-lapse-of-the-assessee-the-ao-ought-to-have-returned-the/
Article referred: http://itatonline.org/archives/prashanth-projects-ltd-vs-dcit-bombay-high-court-condonation-of-delay-an-appeal-wrongly-filed-before-the-ao-and-not-cita-is-an-unintentional-lapse-of-the-assessee-the-ao-ought-to-have-returned-the/
Comments
Post a Comment