9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 968 - HC - Income TaxCondonation of delay - whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause so as to become entitled for condonation of delay? - Held that - The affidavit in support does not set out the reasons why the Revenue decided to file an appeal in the case of M/s. Shiv Roadways in respect of the Assessment Year 2007-08 particularly when a conscious decision was taken on the same issue in case of the respondent assessee not to file an appeal. We expect the Revenue to adopt a consistent stand. Merely because an appeal has been filed in respect of the order of the Tribunal in respect of M/s.Shiv Roadways for the Assessment Year 200708 and the subsequent admission, would not be ground enough to condone the delay in the backdrop of the conscious decision having been taken not to file an appeal in the case of respondent assessee. Therefore, following the test laid down by us in the Somerset Place Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (2015 (2) TMI 507 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ), where a conscious decision has been taken not to prefer an appeal, the subsequent event such as the decision of the Court of law would not entitle a party to assail the order consequent to the aforesaid decision and seek the condonation of delay.
Issues:
Delay in filing appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against Tribunal's order for Assessment Year 2007-08. Condonation of delay sought by Revenue. Consistency in Revenue's actions regarding filing appeals. Contention regarding conscious decision not to file appeal and subsequent reversal. Application of legal principles from previous judgments. The High Court of Bombay considered a Notice of Motion by the Revenue seeking condonation of a 373-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the Tribunal's order for Assessment Year 2007-08. The affidavit accompanying the Notice of Motion detailed the events leading to the delay, including the conscious decision not to file an appeal initially, which was later reversed due to the filing of an appeal in a similar case. The Revenue argued for condonation to maintain consistency in its actions. On the contrary, the Assessee's counsel opposed condonation, citing a previous court decision that disallowed challenging an order based on a subsequent decision to appeal. The Tribunal's reliance on its own decision in another case for the same issue was highlighted. The Court noted that the affidavit did not clarify if the Revenue had appealed the Tribunal's order in another case involving the same issue for a different assessment year. The lack of this information raised questions about the rationale behind the decision not to appeal in the present case. The Court emphasized the need for the Revenue to adopt a consistent approach and not base its decisions solely on subsequent events or admissions of appeals in other cases. Reference was made to a previous judgment to establish the principle that a conscious decision not to appeal should not be undermined by later actions. The Court highlighted the importance of fixing responsibility for decisions adverse to revenue interests and the need for clear reasons behind decisions to file or not file appeals. It stressed the requirement for the Revenue to maintain consistency in its approach to filing appeals, especially when conscious decisions have been made. The judgment clarified that the decision in this case should not set a precedent for other assessment years unless similar conscious decisions regarding appeals have been taken by the Revenue. Ultimately, the Notice of Motion seeking condonation of delay was dismissed, with no costs imposed. In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay's judgment delves into the intricacies of condoning a delay in filing an appeal under the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the importance of consistency, conscious decision-making, and adherence to legal principles established in previous cases. The ruling serves as a reminder for the Revenue to justify its actions regarding appeals and to maintain a coherent approach in similar situations to avoid undermining conscious decisions not to appeal.
|
