2015 (5) TMI 793 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - Held that - In the case before us a final opinion on the question is not essential because the appeal, in this case filed in the year 2010, was a still born appeal because it was barred by limitation. The appellant did not even serve a copy of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The matter appeared before us as indicated earlier on 9th April, 2015. Till then no steps were taken. The appellant as a matter of fact woke up after Mr. Mazumder was requested by this Court on 9th April, 2015 to give a notice to the learned Advocate for the appellant. Thereafter, copy of the application for condonation has been served upon him. We have considered the grounds for condonation. The ground in substance is that the appellant did not pursue the matter seriously. There is no allegation far less any proof of the fact that the appellant was prevented by any cause far less sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. There is as such no reason why the delay should be condoned. The application for condonation of delay is therefore dismissed. - Decided against assesse.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment and order dated 12th June, 2009 for assessment year 2005-06, Condonation of delay in filing appeal, Maintainability of appeal due to tax effect less than Rs. 10 lakhs, Applicability of CBDT instructions to pending appeals, Consideration of subsequent events in appeal proceedings, Grounds for condonation of delay.

Challenge to Judgment and Order:
The appeal was presented on 28th January, 2010 with an application for condonation of delay of 79 days. However, no steps were taken thereafter by the appellant. The matter was adjourned multiple times, with the acknowledgment due card not returned. The appellant did not appear on several occasions, leading to the appeal being listed under 'For Orders'. The respondent's counsel argued that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being less than Rs. 10 lakhs, citing relevant judgments. The appellant's counsel referred to conflicting views from different High Courts regarding the applicability of CBDT instructions to pending appeals. The Court noted the importance of considering subsequent events and developments in the case for the purpose of justice and shortening litigation.

Condonation of Delay:
The appellant failed to serve a copy of the application for condonation of delay, and no steps were taken until requested by the Court in April 2015. The grounds for condonation lacked substance as there was no valid reason or sufficient cause preventing the timely filing of the appeal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, leading to the automatic dismissal of the appeal. The Court emphasized the need for serious pursuit of legal matters and the absence of any justifiable cause for the delay.

Maintainability of Appeal:
The respondent argued that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below Rs. 10 lakhs, referencing relevant judgments and CBDT instructions. The appellant's counsel presented conflicting views from different High Courts on the issue. However, the Court did not delve into a final opinion on this matter as the appeal was deemed stillborn due to being barred by limitation. The Court highlighted the importance of serving necessary documents promptly and pursuing legal matters seriously.

Applicability of CBDT Instructions:
The conflicting views on the applicability of CBDT instructions to pending appeals were discussed by counsels from both sides. While some argued for the instructions' applicability to ensure consistency and fairness, others highlighted the need to consider the circumstances of each case. The Court noted that in the present case, the appeal was dismissed due to being time-barred, making the final opinion on the instructions' applicability unnecessary.

Consideration of Subsequent Events:
The Court emphasized the importance of considering subsequent events in legal proceedings to ensure justice and fairness. Reference was made to relevant judgments highlighting the need for courts to adapt to updated facts and developments that impact the case. The Court underscored the principle that the right to relief must be judged based on the circumstances at the time of filing the legal proceeding, with provisions for equitable adjustments based on subsequent events.

---