2019 (1) TMI 540 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - inordinate delay of 914 days in filing the appeal and the reason assigned by the assessee is flimsy - Held that - Length of delay alone is not always the criteria to reject an appeal. The facts in the instant case is not in dispute and the appellant is guilty of belatedly filling the appeal after 914 days after the appeal time had lapsed. No doubt the explanation offered is not convincing but there is nothing on record brought by the Revenue to show that the appellant had purposely and willfully delayed in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. So far as the assessment for the years 2010-11 and 2011-2012 is concerned, CIT(Appeals) had passed an order on 09.09.2015 and appeal was filed before the Tribunal within time and that appeal has been dismissed and the appellant has filed Tax Case Appeal. Apart from that, substantial question of law raised by the appellant is now pending before this Court in other cases as well. Substantial question of law raised in this appeal is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Chettinad Logistics (2017 (4) TMI 298 - MADRAS HIGH COURT). Considering the fact that the substantial question of law is pending before this Court in other cases as well, we deem it appropriate that the appellant can be given an opportunity to contest the appeal on merits. However, such opportunity will be subject to certain conditions. The appeal is allowed subject to the condition that the appellant pays a sum of ₹ 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards Chief Minister s Public Relief Fund within a period of four weeks from today and if the appellant complies with the condition, the order passed by the Tribunal, which is impugned in this appeal shall be set aside and the appeal shall be restored to the file of the Tribunal to be heard and decided on merits.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay of 914 days in filing the appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Justifiability of the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal due to the delay.
3. Consideration of reasons for the delay and the appellant's explanation.
4. Application of the law of limitation and principles of finality in legal proceedings.
5. Comparison with a relevant legal precedent - Commissioner of Income-tax, Central 1, Chennai Vs. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd.
6. Decision on allowing the appeal subject to certain conditions.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2009-10. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 914 days in filing the appeal, questioning the sufficiency of reasons provided by the appellant for the delay. The court emphasized that the length of delay alone is not decisive in rejecting an appeal and that sufficient cause for the delay must be demonstrated. While acknowledging the principle of finality in legal proceedings, the court highlighted that the law of limitation should not unduly restrict parties' rights if approached in good faith after the limitation period.

The court noted that the appellant's explanation for the delay was not entirely convincing but found no evidence of deliberate delay by the appellant. The court considered the pending appeals for other assessment years and the fact that the substantial question of law raised in the appeal was also pending in other cases. The appellant cited a relevant legal precedent, Commissioner of Income-tax, Central 1, Chennai Vs. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd, to support their case, which the Revenue argued was distinguishable.

Given the pending substantial question of law in other cases and to allow the appellant to contest the appeal on merits, the court decided to grant the appellant an opportunity subject to certain conditions. The appellant was directed to pay a sum towards the Chief Minister's Public Relief Fund within a specified period. If the appellant complied with this condition, the Tribunal's order would be set aside, and the appeal would be reinstated for a hearing on merits. The appellant was also permitted to present the decision in the case of Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd before the Tribunal for consideration. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.