2024 (6) TMI 1064 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay in filing an appeal to HC - sufficient reason for delay Or not? - as submitted on receipt of the impugned order the Appellant was making enquires to get details of full-fledged interest statement from the government auditor and clarifications regarding the interest earned from other co-operative banks mentioned in the said order. On receipt of the same the Appellant contacted the counsel briefed him about the facts and instructed him to file the appeal. This has resulted in a delay 14 days in filing the appeal HELD THAT - On going through the reason stated in Ext. P4 we find that the petitioner has stated sufficient reason in the application for condonation of delay. 2nd respondent has taken technical view in dismissing the application to condone the delay and in consequently dismissing the appeal. The 2nd respondent went wrong in dismissing the appeal at the threshold on technical grounds. Accordingly set aside Ext. P5 order and direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext. P3 appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till orders are passed on Ext. P3 appeal there shall not be any recovery steps against the petitioner pursuant to Ext. P1.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a society assessed under the Income Tax Act, challenged an assessment order (Ext. P1) by the 1st respondent by filing an appeal (Ext. P3) along with an application for condonation of delay (Ext. P4) before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent dismissed the application for condonation of delay citing lack of sufficient cause and proper explanation for the delay of 18 days in filing the appeal. The 2nd respondent held that the delay was inexcusable unless sufficient cause was shown, and as per judicial precedents, without proper reasons and evidence, the delay could not be condoned. The petitioner argued in Ext. P4 that the delay was due to reasons beyond their control and that they had a strong case for success in the appeal.

The High Court observed that the 2nd respondent took a technical view in dismissing the application for condonation of delay and subsequently the appeal. The Court found fault with the 2nd respondent for dismissing the appeal on technical grounds and set aside the order (Ext. P5). The Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the appeal on its merits expeditiously within three months and ordered no recovery steps against the petitioner until a decision was made on the appeal (Ext. P3). The Court emphasized that the dismissal of the appeal solely based on technicalities was incorrect, and the appeal should be considered on its substantive grounds. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction.