2008 (8) TMI 282 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal to High Court - Delay in filing of appeal - prayer for condonation of delay - showing of sufficient cause - provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable to the appeals filed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act - there is no proper explanation and no sufficient cause shown by revenue for condonation of delay and there is apparent negligence and callousness on the part of the officer/officials of the Department to the extent that even correct statements have not been made delay not condoned

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing income-tax appeals.
2. Application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act.
3. Explanation and sufficiency of cause for delays ranging from 18 to 1474 days.
4. Government departments' responsibility and accountability in timely filing appeals.
5. Judicial precedents on condonation of delay.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Income-tax Appeals:
The court addressed 44 notices of motion filed in income-tax appeals against the orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The delays ranged from 18 to 1474 days. The primary issue was whether these delays could be condoned based on the reasons provided by the appellants, mostly Commissioner(s) of Income-tax, and one by the assessee.

2. Application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to Appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act:
The court noted that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act. The central question was whether the appellants had shown "sufficient cause" for the condonation of delay. The court emphasized that "sufficient cause" must be shown bona fidely for the delay to be condoned.

3. Explanation and Sufficiency of Cause for Delays Ranging from 18 to 1474 Days:
The court scrutinized the affidavits supporting the notices of motion. It found that the reasons for delays were often vague, indefinite, and lacked specific details. For example, in Notice of Motion No. 2335 of 2008, there was no explanation for the period between April 4, 2007, and February 27, 2008. Similarly, in Notice of Motion No. 2059 of 2008, there was no explanation for the period between November 30, 2004, and February 25, 2008. The court held that a heavy burden lies on the applicant to show special circumstances constituting a sufficient cause, especially for delays exceeding 200 days.

4. Government Departments' Responsibility and Accountability in Timely Filing Appeals:
The court acknowledged that while greater indulgence might be shown to government departments due to the inter and intra-departmental steps required before initiating legal proceedings, this indulgence has limitations. The court criticized the casual and negligent attitude of the departments, noting that files often remained unattended for considerable periods. The court emphasized the need for government departments to act with responsibility and vigilance, particularly when public revenue is involved.

5. Judicial Precedents on Condonation of Delay:
The court referred to several judicial precedents to underscore the principles governing the condonation of delay. It cited cases like Banarsi Debi v. ITO and J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills v. CCE, which advocate for a strict construction of limitation laws. The court also highlighted the Supreme Court's stance in cases like Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. and P. K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, which stressed the need for a reasonable explanation for delays and cautioned against a liberal interpretation that could frustrate the purpose of the Limitation Act.

Judgments Delivered:
The court decided to condone the delay in cases where the delay was less than a year and reasonably explained. However, for delays exceeding one year, the court found no sufficient cause and rejected the applications for condonation of delay. Specifically:
- Allowed Notices of Motion: Nos. 2281, 1898, 2155, 2076, 1897, 2005, 2073, 2074, 2185, 2186, 2246, 2247, 2304, 2305, 2330, 2358, 2322, 2338, and 2368 of 2008.
- Rejected Notices of Motion: Nos. 1896, 2292, 2335, 2058, 2094, 2291, 2339, 1963, 1960, 2044, 2045, 2049, 2059, 2060, 2093, 2095, 2248, 2249, 2289, 2290, 2294, 2324, 2336, 2337, and 2340 of 2008.

Directions for Compliance:
To prevent future delays, the court issued several directives to the highest authority in the Department:
- Issue a circular to ensure appeals are filed within the limitation period.
- Introduce public accountability and responsibility in official duties.
- Specify timelines for actions and ensure co-operation between departments.
- Ensure senior officers are responsible for compliance.
- Provide directives for engaging counsel and preparing appeals to avoid delays.

These directives aim to enhance efficiency and accountability within government departments, ensuring timely filing of appeals and safeguarding public revenue.

← Previous Next →