2017 (1) TMI 1638 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - eligible reasons for delay - Only reason set out in the affidavit in support of the notice of motion is that as four appeals on identical issues for earlier years were pending before this Court, he was under a bona fide belief that relief, if any, granted in the appeals pending before this Court would inure to his benefit for the subject assessment year Held that - The affidavit as filed does not carry credibility. This for the reason that if the applicant was genuinely under the impression that its four appeals when disposed of by this Court, would work for his benefit in all subsequent years then there would have been no reason for him to have filed Income Tax Appealfrom the order of the Tribunal as in that case also the applicant would have been under the same belief that the orders in earlier appeals will apply even for order for Assessment Year 2002-03. Therefore, this reason is not a bona fide reason for condonation of the undue delay. In passing, we may mention that the applicant was represented at all time right from the Assessing Officer to the Tribunal by Professionals. Therefore, advice was available to the applicant. We find that the reasons set out in the affidavit in support of the notice of motion evidently are not bona fide. The reason as set out in the affidavit in support for not filing the appeal are not plausible. Thus, we see no reason to condone the delay.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal based on belief of pending appeals benefiting subsequent years.

In this judgment by the Bombay High Court, the applicant sought condonation of a 1662-day delay in filing an appeal from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal related to Assessment Year 2004-05. The applicant's main contention was that due to pending appeals on similar issues for earlier years before the Court, they believed any relief granted in those appeals would also apply to the subject assessment year, leading to the delay in filing the appeal for the current year. The affidavit submitted in support of the delay claimed that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue as the issue was already under consideration in other pending appeals. However, the Court found the reasons in the affidavit lacking credibility. The Court highlighted that the applicant had legal representation throughout the process, indicating that professional advice was available. The Court concluded that the reasons provided were not genuine and dismissed the notice of motion for condonation of delay.

The Court scrutinized the applicant's claim that the belief in pending appeals benefiting subsequent years justified the delay in filing the appeal for the current assessment year. The Court pointed out inconsistencies in the applicant's reasoning, emphasizing that if the applicant genuinely believed in the benefit of pending appeals for subsequent years, there would have been no need to file an appeal for a different year. Additionally, the Court noted that the applicant had access to professional advice throughout the proceedings, making the claimed belief less plausible. Ultimately, the Court found the reasons presented for the delay not credible and refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

The judgment underscores the importance of genuine reasons for seeking condonation of delay in legal proceedings. Despite the applicant's argument regarding pending appeals benefiting subsequent years, the Court found the explanation lacking credibility. The Court's decision was based on the inconsistency in the applicant's actions, the availability of professional advice, and the overall lack of genuine reasons to justify the delay. This case serves as a reminder that courts carefully evaluate the justifications provided for delays in legal matters and emphasize the need for sincerity and credibility in such claims to seek relief.