1978 (6) TMI 29 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved: Determination of whether the appeal was barred by limitation and whether the Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

Appeal Barred by Limitation: The appeal was filed within the 60-day period as required by section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, from the date the order of the AAC was communicated to the Commissioner. The Tribunal accepted the contention that the ITO received the order from the AAC as the agent of the Commissioner, leading to the appeal being filed beyond the limitation period. However, it was found that the order was later directly communicated to the Commissioner, causing a misunderstanding due to executive instructions issued by the Commissioner. The Tribunal, considering this misunderstanding as sufficient cause, condoned the delay and admitted the appeal.

Challenging the Tribunal's Decision: The assessee challenged the Tribunal's decision to condone the delay, arguing that the appeal was not time-barred and that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in condoning the delay without a formal request. The opposite parties contested this, stating that the Tribunal was within its jurisdiction to condone the delay and that the Commissioner did not appoint the ITO as his agent to receive the order from the AAC.

Commissioner's Executive Instruction: The Tribunal found that the Commissioner did not appoint the ITO as his agent to receive the order from the AAC, as there was no evidence of such authorization. The executive instruction issued by the Commissioner aimed to expedite appeal filings but did not establish agency between the ITO and the Commissioner. The Tribunal's conclusion that the ITO was appointed as an agent was deemed unfounded, as the AAC directly communicated the order to the Commissioner as per the Act's provisions.

Condonation of Delay: Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, empowers the Appellate Tribunal to condone delays in filing appeals if sufficient cause is shown. The Tribunal, in this case, cited a misunderstanding caused by the executive instructions as the reason for the delay and exercised its jurisdiction to condone the delay. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that if there is sufficient cause for the delay and the Tribunal is satisfied, it can condone the delay even without a formal request. As the appeal was found to be filed within the limitation period, the question of condonation did not arise, and the Tribunal's decision to admit the appeal was upheld.