2019 (7) TMI 1500 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - HELD THAT - As find from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent that they have been unable to show that the order of the tribunal dated 31st December 2002 was received at an earlier point of time than 23rd August 2011. Mr. Khaitan states that the tribunal in its order dated 13th May 2016 has held that the legal heir of the assessee received a copy of the said order on 23rd August 2011. The appellant/applicant ought to have been much more vigilant in prosecuting his case. But considering the fact that the said order dated 31st December 2002 was received after nearly nine years admittedly and that on advice the appellant/applicant was conducting proceedings before the tribunal, we allow him to advance the merits of his case by condoning the delay. The appellant/applicant will pay consolidated costs of ₹ 25,000/- for this matter and two connected matters to the Income Tax Department through the proper officer authorised to receive the same.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing section 5 application

Analysis:
The appellant filed a section 5 application with an explanation for the inordinate delay in filing it. The delay was attributed to various dates and events, including the dismissal of the appellant's appeal by the Tribunal in 2001, rejection of a miscellaneous application in 2002, setting aside of an order in 2004, and subsequent decisions by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal in 2011 and 2016. The appellant's legal heir received a copy of the order dated December 31, 2002, in 2011, almost nine years after it was issued. The respondent failed to prove an earlier receipt date. Despite the lack of vigilance by the appellant, the Court allowed the case to proceed based on the advice received and the prolonged delay in receiving the order. The appellant was directed to pay consolidated costs to the Income Tax Department. The application for condonation of delay was allowed, and the department was instructed to register the appeal immediately. The appeal and connected application were disposed of in line with the order passed in ITAT No. 417 of 2016.

This judgment primarily dealt with the issue of delay in filing a section 5 application. The Court considered the sequence of events leading to the delay, including key dates and decisions by the Tribunal and tax authorities. Despite acknowledging the appellant's lack of vigilance, the Court allowed the case to proceed due to the significant delay in receiving a crucial order. The respondent's failure to establish an earlier receipt date of the order further supported the appellant's case for condonation of delay. The Court imposed costs on the appellant and directed the department to register the appeal promptly. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the circumstances surrounding the delay and the reasons for allowing the case to advance despite the delay.