2005 (9) TMI 66 - HC - Income Tax

Delay in filing of appeal by department - Condonation of delay - This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act - sufficient explanation for condoning the delay - Way in which the delays are being explained are not sufficient explanation and despite our repeated reminders to the learned advocates appearing for the Department the situation has not shown any improvement and no one has pointed out that any steps have been taken for pulling up any of the officers responsible for the delay - In these circumstances we do not find any merit in the application for condonation of delay. The application is thus dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. The appellant's counsel argued that the delay had been adequately explained, referencing specific paragraphs in the application. On the contrary, the respondent's counsel highlighted a delay of approximately 458 days, contending that the explanation provided was insufficient. The respondent's counsel pointed out a common trend of delays in similar cases, attributing the delays to the manner in which applications were being filed, often without proper responsibility taken. Furthermore, the respondent criticized the practice of shifting blame to the courts for delays in the process, emphasizing that the responsibility lay with the Department itself. The court acknowledged the concerns raised by the respondent, noting the inadequacy of explanations for delays and the lack of improvement despite reminders to advocates representing the Department.

Moving on to the specifics of the case, the court detailed the timeline of events following the Tribunal's order, highlighting various delays in the process of filing the appeal. The court noted significant delays in sending the file for opinion, drafting the appeal, and addressing issues with the submitted papers. The court criticized the lack of a structured approach in explaining the delays, pointing out the absence of responsible officers taking accountability. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the application for condonation of delay and dismissed it, emphasizing the need for a more efficient system to eliminate delays within the Department itself. The court directed the order to be circulated to relevant authorities to prompt the implementation of a more effective filing system to ensure timely appeals. The judgment concluded without imposing any costs on the parties involved, highlighting the importance of addressing systemic delays in the Department to streamline the appeal process effectively.