2014 (1) TMI 448 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - Held that - In the Application for condondation of delay, no cogent reason for delay has been furnished - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a subsequent court pronouncement.
2. Consideration of delay in filing an appeal and application for condonation of delay.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addressed the issue of reopening an assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act following a subsequent court pronouncement. The completed assessment was purportedly opened based on a decision in the case of McDermott International Inc Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, where a Division Bench of the Court held that a judgment of a higher authority cannot be a ground to reopen an assessment under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act in the absence of any failure on the part of the assessee. The judgment of the Division Bench was considered binding. Despite a Special Leave Petition being filed before the Honorable Supreme Court with an Application for Condonation of Delay, the court refused to condone the unexplained delay of 264 days and dismissed the petition, leaving the question of law open. The current Appeal was filed 705 days after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, with no cogent reasons provided for the delay in the grounds of Appeal or the Application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the Appeal.

2. The second issue involved in the judgment pertained to the consideration of the delay in filing the Appeal and the Application for condonation of delay. The court noted that there was a significant delay of 705 days in filing the present Appeal after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Honorable Supreme Court. Despite this delay, the grounds of Appeal did not provide any reasons for the court to take a different view from the previous judgment. Additionally, the Application for condonation of delay did not furnish any cogent reasons for the delay. As a result, the court refused to condone the delay, leading to the failure of the Application for condonation of delay and the subsequent dismissal of the Appeal.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the court and the reasoning behind the decision to refuse to condone the delay and dismiss the Appeal.