2022 (6) TMI 1504 - HC - Income Tax

Delay of 1178 days in filing the appeal - Sufficient reason for delay - HELD THAT - In a recent decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Central Tibetian School Administration Ors. 2021 (2) TMI 1214 - SUPREME COURT the delay of 532 days in filing the appeal was refused to be condoned as the Hon ble Supreme Court took note of its earlier decision in the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulal 2020 (10) TMI 1231 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Court discouraged the State Government and public authorities in adopting an approach that they can walk into the Hon ble Supreme court as and when they please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by the statute as if the limitation statute does not apply to them. In the said decision, the celebrated decision in the case of Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media India Ltd. 2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT was also taken note of. In any event, the facts of each case has to be examined to see whether sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay. In the case on hand, there is a delay of 1178 days. As pointed out earlier for more than two years there is absolutely no explanation and in the department who is presently pursuing the appeal would state that it is the assessment Circle which is handling the file prior to its transfer and they have no opinion about the delay which had occurred prior to the files which were transferred to them. This cannot be taken to be an explanation for condonation of delay. Thus, for the above reasons, we are not inclined to condone the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing the appeal.

In this judgment by the High Court of Calcutta, the main issue revolved around the delay of 1178 days in filing the appeal. The appellant, represented by Ms. Smita Das De, sought condonation of the delay, while the respondent, represented by Mr. S. M. Surana, Mr. Anil Kumar Dugar, and Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee, opposed the delay. The Court noted that the appeal, if filed before September 3, 2017, would have been within time; however, it was filed on January 25, 2021, resulting in the significant delay. The department attempted to explain the delay, citing the transfer of the case as a reason. The Court emphasized the need for a valid explanation for the entire period of delay, from September 3, 2017, onwards. The Court referred to a Supreme Court decision where condonation of delay was refused due to unexplained delays. Despite the department's attempts to justify the delay, the Court found the explanations insufficient and dismissed the application for condonation of delay, ultimately rejecting the appeal.

The Court highlighted the importance of providing a sufficient cause for condonation of delay, especially in cases where there is a significant delay like the present one. The Court emphasized that mere transfer of files or lack of knowledge about the delay by the current handling department cannot serve as a valid explanation for such a prolonged delay. Referring to previous Supreme Court decisions, the Court reiterated the need for public authorities to adhere to statutory limitations and discouraged a lax approach towards filing appeals within the prescribed time limits. The Court scrutinized the explanations provided by the department for the delay, noting that even the events post-September 14, 2018, failed to account for the entire delay period. Ultimately, the Court held that the delay could not be condoned due to the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the prolonged delay. This judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of timely filing appeals and the necessity of demonstrating sufficient cause for any delays encountered in legal proceedings.