9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 24 - HC - Income TaxCondonation of delay - Held that - The Court is not satisfied with the reasons offered for the extraordinary delay of 1271 days in filing ITA No. 453 of 2012 and the delay of 1876 days in filing ITA No. 464 of 2012. Accordingly CM Nos. 13614/2010 in ITA No. 453/2012 and CM No. 14085/2012 in ITA No. 464/2012 are dismissed. The reasons for the delay of 426 days in re-filing ITA No. 453 of 2012 are also wholly unconvincing.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals. 2. Condonation of delay in re-filing appeals. 3. Validity of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) order dated 5th April 2007. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals: The Revenue filed appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the ITAT's order dated 5th April 2007. The appeals were filed with significant delays-1271 days for ITA No. 453/2012 and 1876 days for ITA No. 464/2012. The Court noted that the Revenue's explanation for the delay was unconvincing. The Revenue claimed that the ITAT's order was received only on 29th July 2010, but the Court found this assertion incorrect. The Court observed that the order was actually received on 26th June 2007, and the Revenue had 120 days to file the appeal, making the last date 26th October 2007. The Court cited the lack of diligence and the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay, referencing the Supreme Court's decisions in *Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd.* and *State of Uttar Pradesh v. Amar Nath Yadav*, which emphasize that government departments are not exempt from the law of limitation. 2. Condonation of Delay in Re-filing Appeals: For ITA No. 453/2012, the Revenue sought to condone a 429-day delay in re-filing. The delay was attributed to the resignation of the Standing Counsel and subsequent inaction. The Court found the explanation inadequate, noting that the Revenue had ample time to address the defects pointed out by the Registry. The Court emphasized that the Revenue's casual approach and lack of urgency were unacceptable, and the reasons provided did not constitute "sufficient cause" for the delay. 3. Validity of the ITAT's Order Dated 5th April 2007: The ITAT had set aside the assessment orders against Mr. Arvinder Singh and Elegant Travels Private Limited (ETPL) on the grounds that no valid opportunity was granted to the Assessee and the requisite satisfaction was not recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating proceedings under Section 158BD of the Act. The Revenue's appeals challenged this order. However, due to the dismissal of the applications for condonation of delay, the Court did not delve into the merits of the ITAT's order. The Court's focus remained on the procedural aspects, particularly the substantial delays in filing and re-filing the appeals. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the applications for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeals due to the Revenue's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the extraordinary delays. Consequently, the appeals ITA Nos. 453 and 464 of 2012 were also dismissed. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and the necessity for government departments to act with diligence and commitment in legal matters.
|
