2014 (5) TMI 233 - HC - Income Tax

Rejection on condonation of delay Delay of 282 days Sufficiency of cause - Held that - The application is as vague as it can be - The date when the Chief Manager of the Bank had been transferred has not been mentioned and how long the office of the Chief Manager remained vacant has also not been mentioned - a nationalised bank, which has its own systems and processes, is surely not dependant on the availability or non-availability of an officer for filing an appeal before the Tribunal Relying upon Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media India Limited 2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process - the Tribunal has furnished good and cogent reasons for declining to entertain the appeal holding that sufficient cause was not shown Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
2. Sufficiency of cause shown by the appellant and rejection by the Appellate Tribunal leading to failure of justice.
3. Pedantic approach in matters of question of limitation and its justifiability in deciding limitation matters.

Analysis:

1. The appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arose from an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 13 December 2013, pertaining to the assessment year A.Y. 2009-10. The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of a delay of 282 days in filing the appeal against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The appellant raised questions of law regarding the sufficiency of cause shown for the delay and whether the rejection by the Appellate Tribunal resulted in a failure of justice. The appellant's explanation for the delay included issues with the Chartered Accountant's availability, transfer of the Chief Manager of the Bank, and subsequent delays in filing the appeal. However, the court found the explanation vague and insufficient, emphasizing that a nationalized bank should not be dependent on the availability of a specific officer for filing an appeal.

3. The court referred to a recent Supreme Court judgment highlighting the need for government bodies to provide reasonable and acceptable explanations for delays, without relying on procedural red-tape excuses. The court noted that condonation of delay should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. In the present case, the Tribunal provided valid reasons for not entertaining the appeal, stating that no sufficient cause was shown. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that no substantial question of law arose in this matter.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Allahabad High Court provides insights into the issues surrounding the appeal, the sufficiency of cause for delay, and the justifiability of the Tribunal's decision in rejecting the appeal.