2015 (2) TMI 404 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - non satisfactory reasons to explain delay - review application that a different view ought to have been taken and the appeal should have been decided on the merits of the case - Held that - The scope of review by this Court is limited and the scope is not to re-hear the appeal and take a different view especially with regard to the condonation of delay. The Division Bench after considering the order of the Tribunal arrived at the finding and this court cannot take a different view on the grounds which are urged by learned counsel for the petitioner. The judgment cannot be reviewed relying on the judgments of Apex Court. There cannot be any dispute on the proposition as held by the Apex Court. The question whether there is sufficient cause to condone delay is to be considered in the facts of each case and the Division Bench of this Court has affirmed that finding refusing to accept the cause shown for condonation of delay. Hence there cannot be any ground to review the judgment. The review petition is hence dismissed.

Issues involved:
Review of judgment for delay in filing appeal, sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay, interpretation of Limitation Act, scope of review by the Court.

Analysis:

1. Review of judgment for delay in filing appeal:
The review petition was filed seeking a review of the judgment dated 9.4.2014 in ITA. No.43 of 2014 due to the dismissal of the appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the grounds of being time-barred by 1270 days for the assessment year 1999-2000. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal citing insufficient cause for the delay, including medical certificates. The High Court, in its initial judgment, refused to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the delay was not adequately explained, and the petitioner had enough opportunities to approach the appellate authority in a timely manner.

2. Sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay:
The petitioner argued that there were sufficient explanations for the delay, citing medical certificates and referring to judgments of the Apex Court to support the contention that the Limitation Act allows for elastic interpretation to serve the ends of justice. However, the Court, in its review, reiterated that the reasons for delay had been considered previously and upheld the Tribunal's decision of not accepting the cause shown for condonation of delay. The Court emphasized that the scope of review is limited and does not involve re-hearing the appeal or taking a different view, especially regarding the condonation of delay.

3. Interpretation of Limitation Act:
The petitioner's reliance on judgments of the Apex Court to argue for a broader interpretation of the "sufficient cause" provision in the Limitation Act was acknowledged. However, the Court maintained that the determination of whether there is sufficient cause to condone delay is a case-specific inquiry. The Division Bench of the Court affirmed the finding that the delay in this case was not satisfactorily explained, leading to the dismissal of the review petition.

4. Scope of review by the Court:
The Court clarified that the scope of review does not extend to taking a different view on the grounds presented by the petitioner, especially when the Division Bench had already considered and affirmed the Tribunal's decision. The Court emphasized that the review process is not meant to reevaluate the merits of the case but to assess the legality and correctness of the original judgment. As such, the review petition was dismissed based on the findings already established and the limited scope of review permitted by the Court.

In conclusion, the Court, in dismissing the review petition, reiterated the importance of adhering to the statutory timelines for filing appeals unless sufficient and convincing reasons are presented for condonation of delay. The judgment underscored the case-specific nature of such determinations and the limitations on the Court's review powers in matters of delay and sufficiency of cause under the Limitation Act.

← Previous Next →