2010 (6) TMI 818 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the filing of a Cross Objection by the Revenue against the order of the learned CIT(A) for not charging surcharge u/s 113 of the IT Act. The main issue is whether the delay of 1555 days in filing the Cross Objection should be condoned by the Tribunal.

Cross Objection Filing and Time Bar:
The Cross Objection was filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) challenging the direction for not charging surcharge. The delay of 1555 days in filing the Cross Objection was explained by the Revenue due to the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Suresh N. Gupta. The Revenue argued that the delay should be condoned as there was a good prima facie case. However, the Counsel for the assessee contended that the delay was deliberate and should not be condoned. The Tribunal considered the provisions of section 253(4) and 254(5) of the IT Act regarding the filing of Cross Objections and the requirement of sufficient cause for delay. The Tribunal observed that the Revenue did not file the Cross Objection within the relevant period despite being aware of the issue, and only did so after the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal referred to relevant judicial pronouncements on delay in filing appeals/cross objections and held that the Revenue failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Cross Objection as time-barred.

Judicial Pronouncements and Decision:
The Tribunal referred to various judicial pronouncements emphasizing the importance of providing valid reasons for condoning delays in filing appeals/cross objections. It was noted that in cases of inordinate delays without valid explanations, the delay should not be condoned. The Tribunal cited cases where delays were not condoned due to lack of sufficient cause. Based on these principles and considering the significant delay of 1555 days without a valid explanation, the Tribunal held that the Revenue had failed to justify the delay in filing the Cross Objection and therefore decided not to condone the delay, ultimately dismissing the Cross Objection as time-barred.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and legal provisions, concluded that the delay in filing the Cross Objection by the Revenue was not justified by sufficient cause. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the Cross Objection as time-barred, emphasizing the importance of providing valid reasons for delays in legal proceedings.

Separate Judgement:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.