2016 (7) TMI 24 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - Held that - Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advance of various earlier decisions. It is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and thee was bonafide effort, 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 government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The negligence, inaction and inordinate delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. Law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. We considering the facts and circumstances explained in affidavit and also in the light judicial decisions, decline to condone the delay in filing the appeal and accordingly dismiss the appeal as unadmitted. - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal - Condonation of delay - Justification for delay

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2010-2011 under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue sought condonation of a 249-day delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to the non-availability of the judicial file for the earlier assessment year 2009-2010, which was relied upon by the Commissioner in the present order. The Departmental Representative explained the reasons for the delay, emphasizing that each assessment year should be considered independently without influence from previous orders. The assessee objected to the delay, citing the Supreme Court's ruling on the unacceptability of red-tapism and bureaucratic delays as sufficient cause for condonation.

During the hearing, the Departmental Representative presented a petition for condonation of delay, detailing the efforts made to locate the judicial file for the earlier assessment year. The delay was attributed to the decentralization of the judicial section, causing confusion in locating the necessary documents. The Department claimed that the delay was not willful but due to the circumstances described. However, the Tribunal noted the distinction between inordinate delays and minor delays, emphasizing the need for diligence and a valid explanation for condonation. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments highlighting the importance of advancing substantial justice and the requirement for sufficient cause beyond the party's control for condonation.

The Tribunal found that the explanations provided by the Department did not sufficiently justify the delay and indicated gross negligence on their part. Citing precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that condonation of delay should not be a routine practice, especially for government bodies. The Tribunal underscored the obligation of government departments to perform their duties diligently and promptly. Ultimately, considering the facts, judicial decisions, and the lack of a plausible explanation for the delay, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed as unadmitted.