2015 (7) TMI 781 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay of 712 days in filing appeal - Held that - Except listing out the dates indicating the manner in which the file pertaining to filing of the appeal moved from one desk to another, there is no explanation for the delay. In fact, as set out above the impugned order 11 September 2006 was received by the department on 21 September 2006 and it was only on 10 January 2007 that the Assessing Officer forwarded his comments to the office of Commissioner of Income seeking approval for filing appeal. Similarly, there is no explanation provided in the affidavit of what happened between the date 16 January 2007 to 5 August 2008. As decided in Post Master General and others Vs Living Media India Limited and another 2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions - Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few - Appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the order dated 11 September 2006 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment year 1978-1979.

Analysis:
The Revenue-Appellant sought condonation of a 712-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Affidavit presented reasons for the delay, detailing the events from the receipt of the ITAT Order in 2006 to the final filing in 2009. However, the court noted that the chronological events did not provide a sufficient explanation for the delay. The court highlighted the lack of clarity on the actions taken between January 2007 and August 2008, indicating a gap in the explanation provided.

The court referenced a Supreme Court case emphasizing that government bodies must offer reasonable and acceptable explanations for delays, cautioning against condoning delays due to bureaucratic inefficiencies. The court applied these principles to the current case, stating that there was no justification to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the Notice of Motion seeking condonation of delay was dismissed, with no costs imposed. The judgment underscored the need for government departments to fulfill their duties diligently and commit to timely actions, emphasizing that condonation of delay should not be a routine benefit extended to such entities.