2019 (4) TMI 1234 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay of 1625 days - sufficient reasons for delay - issue on merit is covered in favour of the assessee - order was received by the peon as partner was outstation, who forgot to bring this to the notice of anyone - HELD THAT - Explanation is not sufficient. Firstly, by merely making a statement that the peon who received the order forgot to inform anyone, the assessee cannot hope to explain such gross inordinate delay. Secondly, the date when he met with an accident, the period during which he was incapacitated due to such accident and such other relevant information is not supplied. There is no material to establish that he met with an accident due to which he could not attend the business of the firm nearly two years as claimed. The explanation is totally inadequate. We cannot ignore long and inordinate delay caused in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The conduct of the party may permit us to be liberal in condoning delay in a given case. However, merely because in other years appeals came to be filed by a litigant would not imply that he can take unlimited period of time while filing appeal in the later years. Delay rejected to be condoned.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal challenging Tribunal's judgment on delay grounds.

Analysis:
The appeal raised several questions, but the main issue was whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal due to a significant delay of 1625 days. The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, leading to the appeal.

Upon review, the High Court found no error in the Tribunal's decision. The delay was indeed substantial, spanning nearly five years. The appellant's explanation cited the partner being out of town, a subsequent accident, and the peon's failure to inform anyone about the order. However, the Court deemed this explanation insufficient. The lack of details about the accident and its impact, along with other reasons, rendered the explanation inadequate.

The appellant argued that similar issues in other years had appeals filed and cited a Supreme Court judgment in their favor. However, the Court emphasized that past behavior could not justify such a prolonged delay. While leniency might be considered in certain cases, the Court clarified that filing appeals in previous years did not entitle the appellant to an unlimited timeframe for subsequent appeals.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that no legal question arose, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.