2019 (8) TMI 24 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of the delay of 1656 days in re-filling - eligible reasons for delay - as stated that recently the Appellant came to know that the appeal had not been listed before the Court and it is only thereafter on 19th November, 2018 that the CIT (Judicial) reallocated the appeal to the present counsel. Even thereafter the appeal was not refiled till 3rd January, 2019 - HELD THAT - Display of lackadaisical attitude on the part of the Appellant in pursuing the appeal, knowing fully well that even in the first instance the filing of the appeal itself was inordinately delayed. The explanation given for the delay of 928 days in filing the appeal is that it was first filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which held by its order dated 11th October, 2012 that it did not have territorial jurisdiction, since the order was passed by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) at Delhi. Even accepting this position, it is seen from para 7 of the application for condonation of delay that the present appeal was filed only in August 2014 i.e. nearly 2 years after the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. There is not even a single line of explanation for this delay. No convincing explanation has been given by the Appellant for the extraordinary delay in filing and refiling the present appeal. The applications are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Delay in re-filing the appeal.
3. Lackadaisical attitude of the Appellant.
4. Lack of convincing explanation for the delay.
5. Legal precedents on delays by government authorities in filing appeals.

Analysis:
1. The appeal by the Revenue was directed against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2006-07. The appeal was accompanied by two applications for condoning the delay of 928 days in filing the appeal and 1656 days in re-filing the appeal. The notice issued in the appeal and applications were returned unserved as the Respondent's premises were vacant.

2. The explanation provided for the delay in re-filing the appeal was deemed unconvincing by the Court. The Appellant's lackadaisical attitude in pursuing the appeal was evident, especially considering the initial delay in filing the appeal.

3. The delay of 928 days in filing the appeal was attributed to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana's lack of territorial jurisdiction. However, the present appeal was filed nearly two years after this order without any explanation for the delay, which was not acceptable.

4. Legal precedents were cited, emphasizing that lethargy by government authorities in prosecuting matters cannot be a legitimate reason for delays in filing appeals. The Court highlighted a recent case where the Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition due to a delay of 728 days, imposing costs on the petitioners.

5. Ultimately, the Court found that no convincing explanation was provided by the Appellant for the extraordinary delays in filing and re-filing the appeal. As a result, both the applications for condonation of delay were dismissed, and the appeal itself was also dismissed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment illustrates the issues surrounding the delays in filing and re-filing the appeal, the lackadaisical attitude displayed by the Appellant, and the legal precedents cited by the Court to support its decision to dismiss the appeal.