2017 (8) TMI 1338 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - extraordinary delay of 278 days in filing the appeal - application filled t under Section 254 before the ITAT - Held that - Mere pendency of an application filed by the Appellant under Section 254 before the ITAT cannot extend the limitation for filing the appeal in this Court under Section 260A(1) of the Act. If the application filed by the Appellant was not taken up by the ITAT for some reason, the Appellant ought to have filed the present appeal within time and mentioned in the memorandum of appeal that the Appellant has also moved an application before the ITAT. In fact, there are numerous occasions when appeals are filed by the parties in this Court without waiting for the decision of the ITAT in the application filed under Section 254 of the Act. Therefore, this is neither a bonafide nor a valid justification for the inordinate delay of 278 days in filing the appeal

Summary

Issues: Extraordinary delay of 278 days in filing the appeal, Justification for delay, Condonation of delay, Dismissal of appeal

Extraordinary delay of 278 days in filing the appeal:
The case involved an extraordinary delay of 278 days in filing the appeal. The appellant explained the delay by stating that the delay was due to the time taken for the decision of a related matter by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and subsequent typing of unclear annexures. However, the court noted that the mere pendency of an application before the ITAT cannot extend the limitation for filing the appeal in the High Court under Section 260A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court highlighted that parties often file appeals in the High Court without waiting for the decision of the ITAT. Therefore, the court deemed the explanation provided by the appellant as neither bona fide nor a valid justification for the delay. Consequently, the court was not inclined to condone the delay and dismissed the application.

Justification for delay:
The appellant justified the delay of 278 days in filing the appeal by citing the time taken for the ITAT to decide on a related matter and the subsequent typing of annexures. However, the court emphasized that such reasons were not considered valid justifications for the delay. The court stated that the appellant should have filed the appeal within the stipulated time and mentioned the pending application before the ITAT in the memorandum of appeal. The court highlighted that the delay was unintentional but not justified based on the reasons provided. Therefore, the court dismissed the application for condonation of delay.

Condonation of delay:
The court, after considering the explanation provided by the appellant for the delay in filing the appeal, concluded that the reasons presented were not sufficient to warrant the condonation of the delay. The court noted that the mere pendency of an application before the ITAT could not serve as a valid reason to extend the limitation for filing the appeal in the High Court. As a result, the court declined to condone the delay and dismissed the application seeking condonation.

Dismissal of appeal:
In light of the extraordinary delay in filing the appeal and the court's decision not to condone the delay, the appeal itself was dismissed by the court. The dismissal of the appeal was a direct consequence of the court's refusal to accept the reasons provided for the delay as justifiable and sufficient for condonation. Consequently, the court's decision led to the dismissal of the appeal filed by the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues of extraordinary delay, justification for delay, condonation of delay, and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal as decided by the Delhi High Court.