2017 (5) TMI 783 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - Held that - The reasons given in the present application are wholly unsatisfactory. The mere fact that the Assessing Officer was busy in other time bearing assessments can hardly be an excuse, particularly given the fact that under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the time period for filing of an appeal is 120 days. No other statute prescribes the time period of over three months. Moreover, there is no explanation for every day s delay. The delay of 190 days cannot be said to be routine.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, sufficiency of explanation for delay

In this case, the main issue revolves around the delay of 190 days in filing the appeal and the sufficiency of the explanation provided for the delay. The appellant sought condonation of the delay, citing various reasons such as the Assessing Officer being occupied with other assessments and administrative compliances, along with frequent transfers causing delays. The appellant argued that efforts were made to expedite the process, and the appeal was filed based on records maintained in the office. However, the court referred to previous judgments emphasizing that government departments must provide reasonable and acceptable explanations for delays. The court noted that under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, the prescribed time period for filing an appeal is 120 days, making the delay of 190 days significant. The court found the reasons given in the application unsatisfactory, stating that the mere busyness of the Assessing Officer cannot serve as a valid excuse for the delay. The court highlighted the lack of explanation for each day's delay and concluded that the delay was not routine.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal itself. The court held that without a satisfactory explanation for the delay, condonation cannot be granted. The judgment underscores the importance of diligence and commitment in government departments, emphasizing that condonation of delay should not be a routine benefit and must be justified with legitimate reasons.