2018 (7) TMI 1893 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - Reasons of delay - HELD THAT - In the Collector Land Acquisition V/s Mst. Katiji 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT it was held each day s delay need not be explained. Our Court condoned the delay. The facts are completely distinguishable in the present case and the condonation application is not being dismissed for failure to explain each day s delay. If we have to accept the reason for the delay viz. understood the import of the order only after effect was given to the order, it would result in the period of limitation provided under the Act being rendered otiose/vain/useless. It is expected of a litigant to study the order on receipt of it and if aggrieved filed an appeal therefore expeditiously. It is not open to a party to try its luck in a subsequent proceedings and only if that is adverse to it, file an appeal from the earlier order on the ground that he did not understand the order of the Tribunal. The affidavits in support also do not inspire confidence as vital information is not forthcoming in the affidavit. We are not satisfied with the reasons for the delay of 224 days in filing the accompanying Appeals. Thus, all the notices of motion are dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeals from a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Upon analysis, the judgment addresses the issue of condonation of a 224-day delay in filing accompanying appeals from a common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The affidavits submitted in support of the Notices of Motion explained the delay by citing the ill health and subsequent demise of the Ex-Chairman and majority shareholder of the Applicant Company, leading to a delay in realizing the implications of the Tribunal's order. The deponent of the affidavits, Mr. Vinay Bhasin, took over tax matters after the Chairman's passing and stated that only upon receiving the Assessing Officer's order did they grasp the significance of challenging the Tribunal's decision. However, the court found the explanations lacking as they did not specify when Mr. Bhasin assumed responsibility for tax affairs or provide clarity on the company's management changes.

The Applicant's counsel argued for substantive justice, emphasizing the potential cascading effects of the Tribunal's order on subsequent assessment years and citing a relevant decision of the Court. Nonetheless, the Court found the explanations unsatisfactory, highlighting the need for litigants to promptly study and act upon tribunal orders rather than waiting for adverse developments in subsequent proceedings to file appeals. The Court differentiated this case from the precedent cited by the Applicant's counsel, where the delay was condoned under different circumstances, emphasizing that the reasons provided in the present case did not justify the significant delay in filing the appeals. Consequently, all Notices of Motion seeking condonation of delay were dismissed.

As a result of the dismissal of the Notices of Motion, the Appeals were deemed infructuous and dismissed accordingly. The judgment underscores the importance of timely action by litigants in response to tribunal orders and the necessity of providing clear and compelling justifications for seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals.