2013 (10) TMI 221 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal as barred by time filed by the appellant in limine, and refusing to condone the delay of 77 days - Held that - The name of clerk and date on which the mistake was discovered should have been mentioned in the affidavit itself. But taking a lenient view of the matter and the fact that the delay is not enormous and is around 77 days, we are of the view that the Tribunal should have condoned the delay by imposing some cost to compensate the department for the delay - order under appeal cannot be allowed to stand. The Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the applications for condonation of delay or dismissing the appeals as barred by time. - delay condoned subject to cost of Rs. 5000/- for each appeal.

Summary

Issues:
- Condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal for assessment years 1997-98 & 1998-99.
- Justification of dismissing the appeal as barred by time and refusal to condone the delay of 77 days.

Analysis:
The High Court addressed the issue of condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal for the assessment years 1997-98 & 1998-99. The appellant had filed two appeals with a delay of about 77 days, citing the misplaced order of the First Appellate Authority as the reason for the delay. The Tribunal had refused to condone the delay, leading to the primary question of whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal as time-barred and not granting condonation for the delay.

During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel argued that the Tribunal erred in not accepting the affidavit of the Director of the assessee company regarding the delay. The counsel emphasized that the delay was not significant, and the appellant had no intention to gain an advantage by filing the appeal late. Reference was made to the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji AIR 1987 SC 1353, advocating a liberal approach in such matters.

On the other hand, the department's counsel supported the Tribunal's decision, contending that the explanation provided for condonation of delay was lacking in material particulars, as noted by the Tribunal in its order. After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the record, the High Court observed that while the affidavit's wording was not ideal and lacked certain details, the delay was not substantial, being only 77 days. The Court opined that the Tribunal should have exercised leniency and condoned the delay by imposing a cost to compensate for the delay.

Referring to the Supreme Court's stance in Mst. Katji's case, the High Court highlighted the importance of adopting a liberal approach in such situations, emphasizing the preference for substantial justice over technical considerations. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, ruling that it was unjustified in rejecting the applications for condonation of delay and dismissing the appeals as time-barred. The Court directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000 in each appeal as costs within three weeks before the Tribunal, allowing the condonation of delay applications.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed both appeals, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that upholds the principles of justice while considering the circumstances of the case.