2006 (2) TMI 142 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal limitation - 1. Whether Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal on the point of limitation without appreciating the reasons stated in the affidavit filed by the appellant? 2. Whether Tribunal was right in law in insisting for an affidavit from counsel when there was an affidavit from the director of the company stating the reasons for the delay? Held that Tribunal ought to have given a finding whether the assessee has given sufficient cause in the affidavit sworn to by the director of the company instead of refusing to accept the affidavit itself. In the absence of any finding by the Appellate Tribunal as to the sufficient cause for the alleged delay we are convinced that the Appellate Tribunal has erred in refusing to exercise the discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act. - Appeal stands allowed and the order of the Appellate Tribunal is set aside

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal dismissal on the point of limitation without considering reasons stated in the affidavit.
2. Requirement of an affidavit from counsel despite an affidavit from the director of the company.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against the order of the income-tax Appellate Tribunal, where the assessee, a limited company, challenged the dismissal of their appeal on grounds of limitation. The Appellate Tribunal rejected the appeal due to a delay of 231 days, citing lack of convincing reasons for the delay. The Tribunal insisted on an affidavit from the counsel, which was not provided, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. However, an affidavit from the director of the company explaining the delay was submitted but not considered by the Tribunal. The court emphasized the need for a pragmatic approach in exercising discretion under the Limitation Act, distinguishing between inordinate delays and minor delays. It highlighted the importance of advancing substantial justice and adopting a liberal construction of the term "sufficient cause."

The court referred to a previous judgment emphasizing that no strict rule can be applied in condoning delays, and each case should be evaluated individually. The court criticized the Tribunal for not assessing the sufficiency of the cause presented in the director's affidavit and for dismissing the appeal without proper consideration. It concluded that the Tribunal erred in not exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act and failing to establish the absence of sufficient cause for the delay. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the assessee on the first issue, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remitting the matter back for a fresh consideration on its merits and in accordance with the law.

Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the court directed the Appellate Tribunal to review the case based on the provided affidavit and make a decision considering the sufficiency of the cause for the delay, as required under the law.