2008 (7) TMI 391 - HC - Income Tax

Delay in filing an appeal before ITAT non filing of an application for condonation of delay held that - Sub-section (3) of section 253 of the Act provides that every appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 253 of the Act shall be filed within a period of 65 days of the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the assessee or the Commissioner, as the case may be. The Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (5) of section 253 of the Act may admit an appeal after the expiry of the relevant period provided it is specified that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the time stipulated. Since no application for condonation of delay was filed and there being no reason on record much less sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the time stipulated, the Tribunal was left with no option but to dismiss the appeal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal dismissal on account of delay without deciding on merits
2. Rejection of request for condonation of delay due to administrative hierarchy
3. Dismissal of appeal despite request for condonation of delay

Analysis:
1. The High Court considered the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2001-02. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 38 days in filing it. The court noted that the Registry had informed the Department about the delay and the need for the correct copy of the assessment order. Despite being granted time to file an application for condonation of delay, the Revenue failed to do so. The court emphasized that delays are usually condoned in the interest of justice unless there is gross negligence or deliberate inaction. In this case, the court found it to be a clear case of gross negligence and inaction on the part of the Department officials, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

2. The court highlighted the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 253 of the Income-tax Act, which require appeals to be filed within a specified period. It was mentioned that the Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal after the expiry of the period if there is a sufficient cause for the delay. Since no application for condonation of delay was filed by the Revenue, and there was no sufficient cause provided for the delay, the Tribunal had no choice but to dismiss the appeal. The court emphasized that the decision to dismiss the appeal was in accordance with the statute due to the lack of any valid reason for the delay.

3. The High Court concluded that no substantial questions of law arose from the appeal as the issues were primarily factual in nature. The court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's findings, stating that there were no substantial legal questions involved in the case. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the Revenue's appeal due to the failure to file an application for condonation of delay within the specified time frame.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the court's reasoning behind dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue.