9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding the departmental appeal as time-barred despite the service of the appellate order? 2. Whether the delay in filing the appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Calcutta, on January 28, 1982, should have been condoned? Analysis: 1. The Tribunal was faced with the issue of whether the departmental appeal was time-barred, even though the relevant appellate order had been served on the appellant-Income-tax Officer. The order of assessment was passed on September 25, 1981, and the appeal was instituted on October 23, 1981. However, the appellate order was served on the Commissioner of Income-tax on February 9, 1982, and the deadline for filing the appeal expired on April 10, 1982. The appeal was ultimately filed on May 28, 1982, leading to a delay of one month and 18 days. The Tribunal declined to condone the delay, emphasizing the need for a valid explanation for the delay in presenting the appeal. 2. The main contention revolved around the delay in filing the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Calcutta. The grounds for seeking condonation of the delay were primarily centered on the Commissioner of Income-tax's error in forwarding the order to the wrong Income-tax Officer. The Commissioner failed to explain why this mistake occurred and when it was realized. Despite the history of the assessee's files being under a different jurisdiction three years ago, the appeal in question was against the order passed by a different Income-tax Officer. The Tribunal found that the case did not warrant condonation of the delay, as there was a lack of justification provided for the error in forwarding the order. 3. The Tribunal's decision not to condone the delay was further supported by a reference to a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471. In that case, the Supreme Court had condoned a four-day delay, emphasizing the need for both the assessee and the Revenue to be treated equally. However, in the present case, the Tribunal's discretion in not condoning the delay was deemed valid. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's decision, noting that there was little room for interference with the Tribunal's order. Consequently, the question was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee. In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of providing a valid explanation for delays in filing appeals and the need for judicial discretion in condoning such delays. The decision underscored the significance of procedural adherence and the requirement for equal treatment of both parties in legal matters.
|
