2019 (6) TMI 303 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - sufficient cause for delay of 733 and 739 days - as urged appellant is engaged in agriculture in the village of Haryana and being not educated, was not fully aware of the rights and remedies available to him for the redressal of his grievances. The appellant was unable to file the appeal on time as he had come to know about the same only from the order dated 4.10.2018 passed by the Tribunal in identical cases - HELD THAT - Law of limitation has been enacted which is based on public policy so as to prescribe time limit for availing legal remedy for redressal of the injury caused. The purpose behind enacting law of limitation is not to destroy the rights of the parties but to see that the uncertainty should not prevail for unlimited period. The meaning to be assigned to the expression sufficient cause occurring in Section 5 of the 1963 Act should be such so as to do substantial justice between the parties. The existence of sufficient cause depends upon facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be applied in deciding such cases. We do not find any ground to condone the colossal delay of 733 and 739 days in filing the appeals. The question regarding whether there is sufficient cause or not depends upon each case and primarily is a question of fact to be considered taking into totality of events which had taken place in a particular case. In the present case after appreciating the matter it cannot be said that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay. However, the appeal was required to be filed within the stipulated period of limitation of 120 days. But the appellant filed the appeal before this Court on 27.2.2019, after a delay of 733 days. The plea of the appellant as mentioned above would not satisfy the test of sufficient cause. The explanation of the appellant is bereft of justification for the delay caused in filing the appeal keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus finding no merit in the applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the same are hereby dismissed

Summary

Issues Involved:
Condonation of delay in filing the appeals under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay
The primary issue in the appeals was whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 733 days in ITA Nos. 133 and 134 of 2019 and 739 days in ITA-135. The legal position regarding condonation of delay under Section 5 of the 1963 Act was examined. The Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation highlighted the principles for adjudicating the issue of condonation of delay. The Court emphasized that the expression "sufficient cause" in Section 5 is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a manner that serves the ends of justice. It was noted that the law of limitation is based on public policy to ensure legal remedies are availed without delay, and the courts have the discretion to condone delay if sufficient cause is shown. The Court also cited R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, emphasizing that the test of "sufficient cause" is individualistic and not objective, requiring a case-by-case analysis.

Issue 2: Application of Legal Principles
The law of limitation aims to preserve legal remedies within a fixed period and does not intend to destroy parties' rights. Section 5 of the 1963 Act empowers courts to condone delay when sufficient cause is demonstrated. The meaning of "sufficient cause" should ensure substantial justice between parties, and its determination depends on the facts of each case. The courts are advised to adopt a liberal approach for short delays and a stricter approach for inordinate delays. The appellant in this case argued that the delay was due to lack of awareness and circumstances beyond their control, but the Court found no justification to condone the significant delay in filing the appeals.

Conclusion:
After considering the arguments and legal precedents, the Court found no merit in the applications for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeals as time-barred. The Court emphasized that the appellant's explanation did not satisfy the test of sufficient cause, and the delay was not justified based on the totality of facts and circumstances. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed due to the failure to file within the stipulated period of limitation.