2020 (2) TMI 166 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 3389 days - reasonable cause of delay - HELD THAT - Tribunal has returned a clear finding that no sufficient cause was shown by the appellant to explain the huge delay. Period of delay is a factor to be considered while considering a delay condonation application; but more importantly it is the explanation for the delay which is relevant. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Condonation of delay application.
3. Merit of the appeal.
4. Consideration of delay by the Tribunal.
5. Comparison with relevant case laws.

Delay in filing appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after a delay of 3389 days. The Tribunal declined to condone the delay, leading to the current appeal before the High Court.

Condonation of delay application:
The appellant submitted an application for condonation of delay along with two affidavits to explain the reasons for the delay. The Tribunal, however, found no sufficient cause to justify the significant delay in filing the appeal.

Merit of the appeal:
The appellant argued that the Tribunal should have considered the merit of the appeal rather than dismissing it as time-barred. The appellant's counsel cited various judgments, emphasizing the need for a liberal approach in such matters.

Consideration of delay by the Tribunal:
The Tribunal, in its order, highlighted the inordinate delay of about 10 years in filing the appeal. It rejected the explanations provided by the appellant, stating that there was no valid reason to allow the appeal after such a long period.

Comparison with relevant case laws:
The High Court referred to the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji and a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Cenzer Industries Ltd. The Court emphasized the importance of explaining the delay post the period of limitation and the need for a plausible and reasonable explanation for condonation of delay.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the appellant failed to provide a sufficient cause to justify the delay in filing the appeal. The Court emphasized that the period of delay and the explanation provided are crucial factors in considering a delay condonation application. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.