2015 (8) TMI 847 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay of 2403 days- necessary relief against the rejection of his application under section 80G seeked - Held that - Appellant s neglect of its own right for a long time in preferring appeals. In such a case, then it cannot be expected from us to inquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. We respectfully follow the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (2008 (11) TMI 611 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) wherein it was held that the evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right for a long time in preferring the appeals, then the settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay. Secondly, the onus is on the appellant to establish and substantiate the day to day delay of 2403 days. In this case, the appellant has miserably failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for such extraordinary delay of 2403 days. The petition of the appellant is totally silent on this aspect beyond a mere cryptic and standard reply that the appeal documents were handed over to the Counsel s clerk, the documents were not traceable in the intervening period and thereafter when the documents were finally traced, the appeal was filed. We wonder whether the appellant would have taken a similar stand and the position where there are criminal or other civil proceedings against him. Would he had waited for such a long time to reach out to his Counsel again after handing over the papers initially and waited for his Counsel to file appeal on his behalf. In our considered view, the action or rather inaction on part of the appellant shows clear gross negligence in not taking the necessary steps in filing the subject appeal in time and the same cannot be accepted. In such a case, the appellant has no legal right to expect a liberal approach from us in condoning the delay notwithstanding the merits, if any in the matter.

Summary

Issues:
- Delay in filing the appeal under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
- Whether there was sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 2403 days in filing the appeal.
- Application of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in condoning the delay.
- Examination of reasons justifying the delay.
- Comparison with relevant legal precedents regarding delay in filing appeals.
- Analysis of the appellant's explanation for the delay.
- Determination of whether the delay can be condoned under section 253(5) of the Act.
- Decision on whether to dismiss the appeal as barred by limitation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the order denying exemption under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary issue before the Tribunal was the delay of 2403 days in filing the appeal, necessitating an examination of whether there was sufficient cause for such a prolonged delay.

2. The Tribunal considered the application of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in condoning the delay. Section 253(5) of the Act empowers the Appellate Tribunal to admit an appeal if satisfied with the existence of sufficient cause for the delay in filing.

3. Legal precedents, such as the cases of Pundlik Jalam Patil and Office of the Chief Post Master General, were referenced to assess the appellant's explanation for the delay. These cases highlighted the importance of timely legal remedies and the need for acceptable justifications for delays.

4. The appellant's explanation for the delay included handing over the order to the Counsel's clerk, subsequent delays in locating the documents, and eventual filing of the appeal. However, the Tribunal found this explanation lacking in satisfactory details and substantial reasoning for the prolonged delay.

5. The Tribunal emphasized the appellant's neglect of their right to file the appeal promptly, indicating gross negligence and lack of proactive action in pursuing legal recourse. The appellant's failure to provide a compelling reason for the delay further weakened their case for condonation.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had not presented acceptable and cogent reasons to justify the significant delay of 2403 days. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to exercise discretion under section 253(5) of the Act to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation.

7. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely legal actions, the burden on appellants to substantiate delays, and the necessity for valid and compelling justifications to seek condonation of delay in filing appeals under the relevant legal provisions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal due to the inordinate delay serves as a reminder of the significance of timely legal actions and the requirement for appellants to provide substantial and acceptable reasons for seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals under the applicable laws.