2005 (5) TMI 53 - HC - Income Tax

Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay - approach of the Tribunal is pedantic while in matters of condonation of delay it should be pragmatic and liberal. reasons given by the appellant for the delay in filing the appeal were sufficient and liable to be condoned. - The law of limitation is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublica ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. - held that the expression each day s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made and it must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner - In the result the appeal is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on illness of a partner and pragmatic approach vs. pedantic view by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was filed against the order of the Tribunal dated November 29, 2004, in I.T.A. No. 44/Agra of 1998 for the assessment year 1992-93. The appellant, a partnership firm with two partners, filed the appeal beyond the stipulated period of 160 days and sought condonation of delay due to the illness of one of the partners. The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay, prompting the appeal before the High Court (HC).

Upon reviewing the Tribunal's order, the HC found the Tribunal's approach to be pedantic in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The appellant had cited valid reasons for the delay, including the illness of one partner, advanced age of the other partner, and logistical challenges in filing the appeal. The HC emphasized the need for a pragmatic and liberal approach in matters of condonation of delay, especially considering the circumstances presented by the appellant.

The HC referenced legal precedents to support its stance on condonation of delay. It highlighted the Supreme Court's interpretation of "sufficient cause" under the Limitation Act, emphasizing the need for a meaningful application of the law to serve the ends of justice. The HC also cited various cases where a pragmatic approach was favored over a strict interpretation of delay, underscoring the importance of substantial justice in such matters.

In light of the arguments presented and the legal principles invoked, the HC allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order and condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal was directed to proceed with the assessment for the relevant year, ensuring both parties are given a fair opportunity to present their case. The judgment underscored the importance of balancing technical considerations with the cause of substantial justice in such legal proceedings.