2021 (10) TMI 972 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay of 2554 days in filing the appeal - Eligible reasons of delay - HELD THAT - There is lack of sufficient justification shown by the present Petitioner for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Petitioner is unable to offer any better explanation for the delay except to say that since the question whether the employees in the NCERT were to be treated at par with the Central Government employees was pending consideration and was decided by the CIT (Appeals), Mysore only on 31st August 2017, the Petitioner could not have preferred an appeal earlier. The extraordinary delay of 2554 days cannot be condoned on such a weak explanation given by the Petitioner. The Court is unable to find any error committed by the ITAT in declining to condone the delay of 2554 days in the Petitioner filing an appeal before it against the order of the CIT (A).

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT).
2. Justification for the delay in filing the appeal.
3. Applicability of Supreme Court orders on belated redressal of grievances.
4. Decision on whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Analysis:
The High Court of Orissa dealt with a case where the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) rejected a petitioner's plea for condonation of a significant delay of 2554 days in filing an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT). The court noted that the impugned order by the ITAT highlighted the lack of sufficient justification provided by the petitioner for the prolonged delay. The petitioner's explanation for the delay was based on the decision regarding the treatment of employees in NCERT, which was only concluded in 2017. However, the court found this reasoning unconvincing, emphasizing that the petitioner should have filed the appeal in a reasonable time, irrespective of the decision in Mysore. The court emphasized that a delay of 2554 days could not be condoned based on such a weak explanation.

Furthermore, the court referred to several orders by the Supreme Court that criticized government departments for approaching the court belatedly for grievance redressal. The court cited specific cases as examples of the Supreme Court's disapproval of delayed appeals or petitions. Despite the petitioner's arguments, the High Court upheld the ITAT's decision to not condone the substantial delay in filing the appeal against the CIT's order. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed by the court.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment underscores the importance of timely appeals and the need for strong justifications to condone significant delays in legal proceedings. The court's decision was based on the lack of convincing reasons provided by the petitioner for the prolonged delay, in line with the principles highlighted by the Supreme Court regarding belated redressal of grievances.