2015 (9) TMI 140 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay of 2286 days - as submitted that the delay in filing the Appeals was caused due to the mistaken / erroneous impression of the Appellant that not having agitated the issue before the Tribunal, it was not entitled to agitate the said issue, thereafter - Held that - We find the affidavits in support are bereft of any particulars, save and except that they have been now advised to file an Appeal to this Court to be considered along with the Appeal filed by the Company. The affidavits do not indicate the date when the advise was given, nor who advised, nor the circumstances in which the advise was given. It is settled position of law that application for condonation of delay should have sound and cogent reasons for explaining the delay with particulars which caused the delay. We find that the affidavits in support have not set out particulars which resulted in the delay. No reason to condone the delay sought by the applicants in both the Notices of Motion.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals from the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Year 1997-98.

Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay dealt with two separate Notices of Motion regarding the condonation of delay in filing appeals from the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Year 1997-98. The first motion, filed by a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), sought condonation of a delay of 2745 days, while the second motion, filed by an individual, sought condonation of a delay of 2286 days. Both motions were supported by affidavits filed by the same Constituted Attorney, presenting identical content except for the number of days of delay sought to be condoned. The reasons provided for the delay were based on the mistaken belief that not raising an issue before the Tribunal precluded them from appealing to the High Court. The appellants later realized the need to file appeals to ensure a comprehensive consideration of the expenditure and revenue aspects related to the company and the appellants. However, the affidavits lacked specific details regarding the advice received, the advisor, and the circumstances surrounding the advice, which are essential for justifying the delay according to legal standards.

The court emphasized that applications for condonation of delay must offer sound and cogent reasons supported by specific particulars explaining the causes of delay. In this case, the court found the affidavits insufficient in providing the necessary particulars to justify the delay adequately. Consequently, the court concluded that there was no valid reason to condone the delay as sought by the applicants in both motions. As a result, the High Court dismissed both motions and disposed of the appeals accordingly, upholding the decision to not condone the delays in filing the appeals from the Tribunal orders for the Assessment Year 1997-98.