1966 (1) TMI 14 - HC - Income Tax

Delay in filing appeal - Whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to condone the delay in depositing the prescribed fee for the appeal

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against income tax assessment - Delay in depositing prescribed fee - Condonation of delay - Judicial exercise of discretion by Tribunal

Analysis:
The case involved the Laheriasarai Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. appealing against an income tax assessment. The Bank forwarded the appeal memorandum to the Appellate Tribunal without the prescribed fee of Rs. 100, citing an exemption notification from the Bihar Government. The Tribunal deemed the appeal incompetent due to the fee non-payment. The Bank later deposited the fee and applied for condonation of the delay, attributing the delay to a genuine misunderstanding based on a letter from the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as time-barred, prompting the Bank to seek a reference to the High Court.

The High Court examined the facts and found the Bank had a bona fide misapprehension regarding the fee payment, supported by the letter from the Assistant Registrar. The Court noted that the delay of three days between receiving the Tribunal's communication and depositing the fee was reasonable, especially considering the procedural requirements in a co-operative society. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal's discretion to condone the delay was a legal question, which needed to be determined judicially.

The Court highlighted that the Tribunal had the power to admit an appeal after the statutory period if sufficient cause was shown. In this case, the appeal was presented on time but lacked the required fee, leading to the delay condonation issue. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's refusal to condone the delay was unjustified, as the Bank's reasons were valid. Therefore, the Tribunal was directed to consider the appeal on its merits.

In the final decision, the Court disposed of the application, directing the Bank to pay costs to the opposing party. The Court's ruling emphasized the importance of judicially exercising discretion in matters of delay condonation, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal principles.