2015 (3) TMI 614 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 1845 days in taking out the Notice of motion - Held that - Mr.Gupta the learned counsel for the Revenue emphasized that there was a genuine mistake on the the part of the revenue in not having kept them abreast with the developments after filing of the appeal. It is accepted that the mistake should not have happened. We do find that there was an unintentional lapse on the part of the revenue as the lapse could have been corrected much earlier when the appeal for A.Y.2001-02, 20030-04, 2005-06, 2006-07 was filed in 2012. In fact, there was no earthly reason for the revenue not to pursue the present appeal when on the same issue appeals are filed from subsequent order of the Tribunal to this Court and the same are pending. We would expect the revenue to be more cautious henceforth and ensure that matters are properly attended to and proper followup is done with regard to the orders passed by this Court. It in view of revenue's mistake the delay of 1845 days in taking out the present motion be condoned and we also set aside the order dated 7.11.2009 and restore the Appeal to the file of this Court. However, a mistake on the part of the revenue would have been averted if appropriate care had been taken by them. Thus, the lack of care which led to a mistake of 1845 days cannot be without costs. Therefore, the delay is condoned subject to the Appellant-revenue paying a cost of ₹ 20,000/- to the respondent-assessee on or before 30.3.2015. Needless to state the appellant will also remove the office objections on or before 30.3.2015.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, negligence on part of appellant, prejudice to respondent-assessee, restoration of appeal, costs imposition.

Analysis:
1. Delay in filing appeal and condonation of delay:
The Notice of motion sought restoration of an Appeal dismissed by the Court in 2009, with a delay of 1845 days in filing the current motion. The Appellant claimed they were unaware of the dismissal due to miscommunication and lack of communication from their Advocate. The Court noted the mistake but emphasized that the responsibility lies with the Revenue to be present and informed about their cases, even on non-working days. Despite the unintentional lapse, the Court decided to condone the delay considering the lack of prejudice to the respondent-assessee.

2. Negligence on part of appellant:
The Court criticized the appellant's handling of the matter, stating that the dismissal of the Appeal in 2009 should have been known to them. The Court found the reasons provided for not being aware of the dismissal as preposterous, emphasizing the need for the Revenue to be diligent in such matters. The appellant's lack of inquiry and negligence were highlighted, and the Court expected better conduct in the future.

3. Prejudice to respondent-assessee:
The respondent-assessee strongly objected to the condonation of delay, arguing that they would face prejudice if the appeal was allowed, leading to costs on account of interest on delayed tax payment. The respondent's counsel pointed out the appellant's negligence and lack of necessary inquiries, highlighting the potential financial burden on the respondent if the appeal succeeded.

4. Restoration of appeal and costs imposition:
Despite the criticism of the appellant's conduct, the Court decided to restore the Appeal to the file, emphasizing the need for the Revenue to be more cautious and diligent in the future. The Court balanced the unintentional lapse with the potential prejudice to the respondent and decided to condone the delay, subject to the appellant paying costs of Rs. 20,000 to the respondent and removing office objections by a specified date.

In conclusion, the Court acknowledged the mistake on the part of the Revenue in not being vigilant about their case but decided to restore the Appeal while imposing costs to emphasize the need for diligence and responsibility in legal matters.