2012 (9) TMI 465 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay of 290/287 days in filing appeals - According to the applicant, Assessing Officer was directed to forward all relevant documents with his comments through the office of the Additional Commissioner which was received by him (Assessing Officer) on October 9, 2007 - Assessing Officer, meanwhile, got seriously preoccupied in the work for completing 99 time barring assessments arising out of search and seizure cases by December 31, 2007 . As the exercise was voluminous and complex in nature, there was a considerable delay in processing the same, the situation being compounded by acute shortage of staff in the office of the Assessing Officer Held that - As the situation was beyond his control, the Assessing Officer, eventually, dispatched the relevant documents for filing the appeals as contemplated to the office of the Commissioner, which was received by him on January 11, 2008 - thereafter, his office wrote to the standing counsel of the Department on the same date seeking his opinion regarding the advisability of filing an appeal under section 260A of the Act - delay of 290/287 days in preferring the accompanying appeals is hereby condoned

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
2. Applicability of Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Evaluation of sufficient cause for delay.
4. Bureaucratic delays and their impact on legal proceedings.
5. Judicial precedents on condonation of delay.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The miscellaneous cases were registered on applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay of 290/287 days in filing the accompanying appeals. Initially, these applications were rejected by a Division Bench of the court, which sustained the objection that the prayer for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was untenable in law, referencing the decision in Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India (P.) Ltd. [2009] 315 ITR 449 (SC).

2. Applicability of Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The Revenue took the matter to the apex court, which interfered with the order in light of an amendment via Finance Act No. 14 of 2010 in Section 260A of the Income-tax Act. The issue was remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal on the merits, scrutinizing the cause offered by the applicants for condonation of delay.

3. Evaluation of Sufficient Cause for Delay:
The factual background and grounds for seeking condonation of delay were identical in both cases. The applicant cited various reasons, including the receipt of certified copies of orders and subsequent procedural delays due to the Assessing Officer's preoccupation with other official duties, staff shortages, and bureaucratic processes. The standing counsel's personal difficulties and the long vacation of the court further contributed to the delay. The applicant contended that these reasons constituted sufficient cause in law for condoning the delay.

4. Bureaucratic Delays and Their Impact on Legal Proceedings:
The court acknowledged the bureaucratic impediments and procedural delays inherent in governmental functions. The applicant argued that a liberal approach should be adopted by the courts to prevent meritorious matters from being dismissed at the threshold due to technical delays. The court considered the procedural steps taken by the Revenue and found no evidence of deliberate negligence or inaction.

5. Judicial Precedents on Condonation of Delay:
The court referred to several judicial pronouncements, including Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) and State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani, AIR 1996 SC 1623, which emphasized a liberal approach towards condonation of delay to subserve the ends of justice. The court also considered the apex court's decision in Balwant Singh (Dead.) v. Jagdish Singh [2010] 8 SCC 685, which stressed that sufficient cause should be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, and liberal manner.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the causes enumerated by the applicant to explain the delay were sufficient. The Revenue was not found guilty of deliberate inaction, negligence, or indifference. The applications for condonation of delay were found to have considerable merit and were allowed. The delay of 290/287 days in filing the accompanying appeals was condoned, and the miscellaneous cases were allowed.