2006 (9) TMI 84 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - Tribunal refused to condone the delay file by appellant on the ground that the imposition of curfew could have been a ground for condoning the delay for filing the appeal but it can t for getting authorization - HC condoned the delay and set aside the tribunal order

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed on ground of delay in filing - Condonation of delay due to curfew in the city - Interpretation of "sufficient cause" in section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis:
The High Court heard the appeal filed by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (B Bench), Allahabad. The Tribunal had dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeal-I, Kanpur, dated September 18, 1992, on the basis of delay. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed five days beyond the last filing date of December 14, 1992. The delay was attributed to the curfew in Kanpur from December 6, 1992, to December 16, 1992, which hindered obtaining authorization for filing the appeal. The Tribunal refused to condone the delay, stating that the curfew could not be a ground for delayed authorization beyond the time limit. However, the High Court found this observation to be pedantic and incorrect.

The High Court opined that the curfew indeed could have caused a delay in obtaining authorization, considering the restricted movement during such situations. Emphasizing the liberal construction of the term "sufficient cause" in section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court referred to relevant decisions of the apex court for support. Citing cases like Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality, the Court highlighted the need for a generous interpretation of what constitutes a sufficient cause for condoning delay. Consequently, the High Court held that the delay of five days in filing the appeal was justified due to the circumstances, and the Tribunal's decision was set aside.

In light of the discussions, the High Court directed the Tribunal to proceed with hearing the appeal on its merits in accordance with the law. Stressing the need for expeditious resolution, the Court instructed the Tribunal to decide the appeal within three months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. Ultimately, the High Court allowed the appeal, but refrained from issuing any costs in the case.