2013 (2) TMI 346 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - Period of limitation Delay of 1 year 8 months 25 days in filling of appeal before Tribunal - Assessee argued that expert person to whom he had assigned the work for filing appeals did not file them in time as he was busy in March ending work Sickness of assessee s mother Held that - The courts view applications relating to lawyer s lapses more leniently than applications relating to litigant s lapses. If the appeals could not be filed in time on account of expert s failure to attend the case, the appellants could not faulted. The sickness of mother was also a contributing factor as the assessee was engaged in attending her as she had come to Ahmedabad to stay in his house. In the circumstances, it was not the case that the assessee was guilty of indolence on his part or responsible for whiling away the time. As decided in case of Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom (2008 (7) TMI 836 - SUPREME COURT) that sufficient cause should be understood in pragmatic and practical manner. The cause shown by the assessee was genuine and bonafide. The explanation given by him constituted a sufficient cause and the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay, instead of adopting a pedantic approach In favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
- Interpretation of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay.
- Applicability of legal precedents in condonation of delay cases.

The judgment by the Gujarat High Court pertains to three appeals arising from a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the Assessment Years 1999-2000 to 2002-03. The appeals were filed after a significant delay, prompting the Tribunal to assess whether sufficient cause existed for condonation of the delay. The appellant, an individual running tuition classes, had entrusted the filing of appeals to a tax expert, leading to the delay due to the expert's prior commitments. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the appeals citing lack of sufficient cause for the delay.

The appellant argued that being a layman in tax procedures, he relied on the tax expert for filing the appeals, and the delay was not due to any fault of his own. Legal precedents emphasizing a liberal interpretation of "sufficient cause" were cited to support the appellant's position. In contrast, the department contended that the explanation provided was unsatisfactory, and the delay was substantial, indicating a lack of diligence on the appellant's part. The Tribunal upheld its decision not to condone the delay based on these grounds.

The appellant's explanation for the delay included the tax expert's unavailability due to prior commitments and the appellant's mother's illness, which required his attention. Affidavits supporting these reasons were submitted to the Tribunal. Legal principles highlighted the need for a pragmatic approach in assessing "sufficient cause" for delay, focusing on the absence of dilatory tactics or negligence. The High Court, considering the circumstances, deemed the appellant's cause for delay genuine and bonafide, criticizing the Tribunal's pedantic approach in not condoning the delay.

Ultimately, the High Court allowed all three appeals, condoning the delay in filing by one year, eight months, and twenty-five days. The Court emphasized the importance of adopting a liberal approach in condonation cases to ensure substantive rights are not compromised. The Tribunal was directed to proceed with the main appeals on their merits, acknowledging the genuine cause shown by the appellant for the delay.