1988 (11) TMI 139 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal and the condonation of delay.
2. Merits of the case influencing the condonation of delay.
3. Request to treat the delayed appeal as a cross-objection.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Appeal and the Condonation of Delay:
The appellant filed an appeal with a delay of 110 days. The managing partner's affidavit claimed that the delay was due to his illness, which rendered him bedridden for four months. A medical certificate from Dr. A. Rudra Nagendra Rao supported this claim. However, the revenue opposed the condonation prayer, and an enquiry by the Income-tax Officer revealed contradictions in the appellant's claims. The doctor stated he did not treat the managing partner in his clinic and did not charge any fees, contradicting the managing partner's affidavit. The Tribunal found these contradictions significant and concluded that the appellant did not come with clean hands, thereby dismissing the condonation application.

2. Merits of the Case Influencing the Condonation of Delay:
The appellant's counsel argued for a liberal approach in condoning the delay, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471, which emphasizes substantial justice over technicalities. However, the Tribunal held that merits should not influence the decision on condonation. The Tribunal cited various cases, including Deep Chand Kothari v. CIT [1987] 35 Taxman 223, to support the principle that jurisdictional issues, like limitation, must be resolved before considering the merits. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's inconsistent and contradictory claims regarding the managing partner's illness undermined the credibility of the condonation plea.

3. Request to Treat the Delayed Appeal as a Cross-Objection:
The appellant's counsel made an alternate plea to treat the delayed appeal as a cross-objection under section 253(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal considered various case laws, including Sangit Mohinder Singh v. Punjabi University AIR 1975 Punj. & Har. 318 and Ramswarup v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1973 Raj. 157, which allowed such conversion under the Civil Procedure Code. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the powers of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal are limited to the subject matter of the appeal and are governed by specific forms under the IT Rules, 1962. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's appeal was filed with a significant delay and was based on false claims, making it ineligible for judicial indulgence to convert the appeal into a cross-objection. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation and the appeal itself as time-barred.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the condonation application and the appeal, emphasizing that the appellant did not provide a credible explanation for the delay and attempted to mislead the Tribunal with contradictory claims. The request to treat the delayed appeal as a cross-objection was also denied due to the specific procedural requirements and the appellant's lack of clean hands.