2014 (11) TMI 178 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay delay of 117 days in filing appeal and 1248 days in filing review petition Held that - The explanations offered are an after thought and to cover up the lapses - There is complete silence as to why a statement is made that the department was unaware of the Courts order and at the same time annexing photo copies of the order passed on 17th June, 2009 and 23rd July, 2009 both of which indicate the presence of the revenue/ department counsel when these orders were passed - the Court matters are taken lightly and casually and an impression has been created that the State or the Revenue seeks to get away or take a easy route of offering routine explanations and blaming officers or their advocates - If the cause shown cannot be said to be bonafide and demonstrating utter negligence and callousness, then, we do not see how it can assist the revenue any longer - The appeal which is lodged in the year 2008 remained on the file and was pending for removal of office objections. None bothered to have them removed until this Court noted in June 2009 that the Revenue has failed to comply with the office objections or the rules in that behalf - Time was given to comply with that and it is only thereafter that the Court visited the Revenue with the consequences in law - though the appeal stood dismissed and without any further reference to the Court in 2009, the revenue did not lodge a Review Petition until January 2013 and to be precise the lodging date is 22nd January, 2013 - The Review Petition also remained unattended and we have from the original record found that there were office objections and which were to the knowledge of the advocate filing the Review Petition - the explanation is offered for this enormous delay and which is to be contained in the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay. The delay does not deserves to be condoned - their presence in the Court to own the lapse and deficiency will not assist and the revenue in any manner when they filed affidavits and made solemn statements before this Court but which are contrary to the record - once the successors to those who were incharge in 2008-09 are trying to cover up the past lapses, then, it is evident that the whole attempt is to ensure that none is ever held responsible and accountable for these state of affairs - each of the notice of motions fail and they are dismissed Decided against revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the Income Tax Appeal.
2. Condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition.
3. Examination of the explanations provided for the delays.
4. Evaluation of the conduct and diligence of the Income Tax Department.
5. Review of the legal principles governing condonation of delay.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of delay in filing the Income Tax Appeal:
The appellant sought condonation of a delay of 117 days in filing the Income Tax Appeal. The explanation provided included a series of administrative steps and approvals that delayed the filing process. The appeal was initially dismissed due to non-removal of office objections within the stipulated time. The Court noted that the explanations for the delay appeared to be afterthoughts and attempts to cover up lapses.

2. Condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition:
The appellant also sought condonation of a delay of 1248 days in filing the Review Petition. The affidavit in support claimed that the department became aware of the dismissal only through a letter from an advocate in June 2012. The Review Petition was filed in January 2013 but was dismissed for non-removal of office objections. The Court found the explanations for this delay unconvincing and indicative of negligence.

3. Examination of the explanations provided for the delays:
The Court critically examined the explanations provided in the affidavits. It noted discrepancies and errors in dates, and found the explanations to lack bona fides. The Court observed that the affidavits contained misleading statements and failed to offer plausible reasons for the delays. The department's attempt to involve advocates and administrative machinery in justifying the delay was seen as inadequate and unconvincing.

4. Evaluation of the conduct and diligence of the Income Tax Department:
The Court highlighted the casual and negligent approach of the department in handling the appeal and the review petition. It emphasized that the department's conduct demonstrated a lack of diligence and commitment to public duty. The Court stressed that public officers have a duty to act diligently and swiftly, especially when public revenue is involved.

5. Review of the legal principles governing condonation of delay:
The Court referred to precedents set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, emphasizing that the law of limitation binds everyone, including the government. It reiterated that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be granted routinely. The Court cited cases such as "Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr." and "Maniben Devraj Shah vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai," which stress that government departments must offer reasonable and acceptable explanations for delays and cannot rely on bureaucratic inefficiencies as excuses.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the delays in filing both the Income Tax Appeal and the Review Petition did not deserve to be condoned. It found the explanations provided by the department to be misleading and indicative of negligence. The Court dismissed the notice of motions and directed that a copy of the order be forwarded to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and the Secretary in the Department of Finance, Government of India, for suitable remedial action.

← Previous Next →