2022 (4) TMI 1494 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 987 days in preferring the instant memo of appeal - HELD THAT - We are not convinced with the plea taken by the appellant that the counsel for the appellant was not authorized to accept service of copies of the impugned order in view of the categorical language of the power of attorney conferred upon him authorizing him to represent the appellant before the ITAT. This itself can be treated as the letter of authority upon the learned advocate to receive copy of the order of ITAT. Appellant has taken diligent steps no sooner the intimation of the Income Tax Department about tax dues was received by obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order and preferring the appeal without much delay on 24.09.2020 within the Corona period. We have also taken note of the substantial question of law framed by the appellant for admission of the appeal. Taking a broader view of the matter, we are inclined to condone the delay in the interest of justice, however subject to deposit of cost of Rs.10,000/- at JHALSA within a period of 3 weeks and receipt thereof be also filed within this period. Rectification of mistake - period of limitation - Appeal to be heard on the following substantial questions of law I. Whether under the facts and circumstances and in law the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the M.A. filed by the appellant on the ground of limitation without considering the law existed on the date of filing of the said M.A. i.e. Section 254(2) ? II. Whether the findings recorded by the ITAT, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi is perverse and liable to be set aside?

Summary

Issues involved:
Condonation of delay in filing memo of appeal due to late receipt of order copy, authority of advocate to accept service of order copy, applicability of Covid-related extension of limitation period, opposition to delay condonation by respondent, substantial questions of law for appeal.

Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay:
The appellant sought condonation of a 987-day delay in filing the memo of appeal due to the late receipt of the order copy. The appellant argued that the delay was not attributable to them as the order came to their notice only upon intimation of tax dues by the Income Tax Department. The appellant promptly obtained the certified copy of the order and filed the appeal within a reasonable time. They also relied on the Apex Court's order regarding the extension of limitation periods during the Covid period to support their argument that there was no delay in filing the appeal.

2. Authority of Advocate to Accept Service:
The appellant contended that their advocate was not authorized to receive the order copy on their behalf, thus justifying the delay in filing the appeal. However, the respondent argued that the advocate was duly authorized as per the power of attorney provided, allowing him to accept service of documents on behalf of the appellant. The court noted that the power of attorney conferred upon the advocate was sufficient authorization for receiving the order copy.

3. Opposition to Delay Condonation:
The respondent opposed the prayer for condonation of delay, citing the significant delay from the date of service of the order copy to the commencement of the lockdown period. The respondent argued that the delay was substantial and lacked a proper explanation, warranting rejection of the condonation request. The respondent emphasized the need for a valid explanation for the delay in filing the appeal.

4. Decision and Substantial Questions of Law:
After considering the submissions from both parties and the sequence of events, the court decided to condone the delay in the interest of justice. However, the court imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 to be deposited within three weeks. The appeal was allowed to proceed, and the court framed substantial questions of law for consideration during the appeal hearing, focusing on the justification of dismissing the M.A. on the ground of limitation and the validity of the findings by the ITAT.

In conclusion, the court allowed the condonation of delay in filing the appeal, subject to the deposit of costs, and set forth substantial questions of law to be addressed during the appeal proceedings, ensuring a comprehensive review of the legal issues involved.