2019 (5) TMI 549 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay of 482 days in filing appeal - sufficient cause for delay - after the receipt of the impugned order, the case was sent to the appropriate authority for appointment of counsel - the case could not be pursued and the file remained unprocessed - HELD THAT - The purpose behind enacting law of limitation is not to destroy the rights of the parties but to see that the uncertainty should not prevail for unlimited period. Under Section 5 of the 1963 Act, the courts are empowered to condone the delay where a party approaching the court belatedly shows sufficient cause for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period. The meaning to be assigned to the expression sufficient cause occurring in Section 5 of the 1963 Act should be such so as to do substantial justice between the parties. The existence of sufficient cause depends upon facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be applied in deciding such cases. No ground to condone the colossal delay of 482 days in filing the appeal. The question regarding whether there is sufficient cause or not depends upon each case and primarily is a question of fact to be considered taking into totality of events which had taken place in a particular case. In the present case after appreciating the matter it cannot be said that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay. However, the appeal was required to be filed within the stipulated period of limitation of 120 days. But the appellant filed the appeal before the Tribunal on 19.2.2018, after a delay of 482 days. The plea of the appellant as mentioned above would not satisfy the test of sufficient cause. The explanation of the appellant is bereft of justification for the delay caused in filing the appeal keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case. Finding no merit in the application for condonation of 482 days' delay in filing the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Delay in refiling the appeal, substantial questions of law regarding provisions for service charge on gunny bags and financial assistance, condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Delay in Refiling the Appeal:
The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The delay of three days in refiling the appeal was condoned. The primary issue was whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of the significant delay of 482 days in filing the appeal. The legal principles governing the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were examined. The court referred to previous judgments emphasizing the need for a liberal approach for short delays and a stricter approach for inordinate delays. The court highlighted that the determination of "sufficient cause" is a fact-specific inquiry, and no exhaustive list of circumstances exists to establish sufficient cause. The appellant argued that the delay was unintentional and beyond their control, as the case was sent for counsel appointment but remained unprocessed. However, the court found no grounds to condone the substantial delay of 482 days, concluding that the explanation provided did not justify the delay. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the appeal was also dismissed as time-barred.

Substantial Questions of Law:
The appeal raised substantial questions of law regarding the provisions made by the assessee for service charge on gunny bags and financial assistance. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had confirmed additions totaling ?80,18,000 and ?39,21,960, respectively, which the appellant contested. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's orders were bad in law and deserved to be set aside due to improper appreciation of evidence and lack of opportunity. The court, however, did not delve into the merits of these questions as the appeal was dismissed on grounds of delay. The issues related to the additions made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Tribunal were not directly addressed in the judgment due to the time-barred nature of the appeal.

Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The court extensively discussed the legal principles governing the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Citing previous judgments, the court emphasized the need for a case-specific analysis to determine "sufficient cause" for condoning delay. The appellant's explanation for the delay, citing administrative issues and lack of processing, was deemed insufficient to justify the substantial delay of 482 days. The court highlighted that the law of limitation aims to ensure timely redressal of legal grievances and that the appellant's reasons did not meet the threshold for sufficient cause. Despite arguments of unintentional delay and circumstances beyond control, the court found no merit in condoning the delay, ultimately dismissing the application and the appeal as time-barred.

---