1996 (7) TMI 186 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal
2. Interpretation of Section 253(3) and Section 268 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
3. Application of Rule 9 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963
4. Precedents and Judicial Interpretations

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal:
The appeal filed by the revenue was barred by limitation by 766 days. The first appellate authority's order was communicated to the Commissioner of Income-tax on 19-8-1988, and as per section 253(3) of the Act, the appeal should have been filed within 60 days, i.e., by 18th October 1988. However, the appeal papers were filed on 26-11-1990. The Departmental Representative filed a petition for condonation of delay, attributing the delay to postal delivery issues and the refusal of the first appellate authority to issue a certified copy.

2. Interpretation of Section 253(3) and Section 268 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
Section 253(3) mandates that an appeal should be filed within 60 days of the communication of the order. Section 268, analogous to section 67A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, allows the exclusion of the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order when computing the limitation period. The Tribunal considered the genesis of these provisions and prior judicial interpretations, concluding that the period spent obtaining a certified copy should be excluded from the limitation period.

3. Application of Rule 9 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963:
Rule 9 and its Explanation, effective from 1-8-1987, dispensed with the obligation of filing a certified copy with the appeal. The Departmental Representative argued that the time taken for obtaining a certified copy should still be excluded. The Tribunal noted that rules cannot override statutory provisions and that the time taken for obtaining a certified copy should be excluded even if the certified copy was not filed with the appeal, as supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court.

4. Precedents and Judicial Interpretations:
The Tribunal referred to several judicial precedents, including decisions by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Rasipuram Union Motor Service Ltd. v. CIT and the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Babu Ram Chandra Bhan, which supported the exclusion of time taken to obtain a certified copy when computing the limitation period. The Tribunal also considered the decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in State of Assam v. Anil Chandra Das, which emphasized that sufficient cause for delay should be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of each case, with the objective of furthering substantial justice.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the delay in presenting the appeal was due to sufficient cause. The appeal was filed before the certified copy of the order was issued by the first appellate authority, and the delay was attributed to a bona fide belief that the certified copy was necessary. The Tribunal held that the delay was due to a bona fide impression and ignorance of the correct legal provisions, and thus, the delay deserved to be condoned. The registry was directed to fix the appeal for final hearing on merit in the regular course.