2021 (10) TMI 375 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - period of limitation prescribed under the Act - HELD THAT - Date of filing of the appeals by the assessee has to be reckoned as 23.09.2013 for all purposes. This is so, because if we exercise discretion and condone the delay in representation, then the delay in filing is ranging only between 4 to 16 days, which has been calculated as per the period of limitation prescribed under the Act, reckoning the date of filing of appeal as 23.09.2013. Therefore, it goes without saying that the appeals were filed before the Registry on 23.09.2013. As far as the delay in representation is concerned, the Revenue may be right in stating that the assessee cannot escape by blaming the erstwhile counsel. In many of the cases, we have noticed that, on account of change of jurisdiction, there is change of Standing Counsel for the Department and there would be delay in handing over the papers to the concerned Standing Counsel and these are all cumulative reasons, which will lead to delay in filing the appeal or representing the appeal or getting the appeal numbered or making submissions in the appeal which have been numbered. Thus, bearing in mind that we are required to decide the substantial questions of law in appeals filed under Section 260A of the Act, we exercise discretion and condone the delay in representing the appeals.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in representing appeals; Condonation of delay; Benefit of VSV Scheme; Justification of canceling Form-3; Merits of the case; Substantial questions of law under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:

1. Delay in representing appeals and Condonation of delay:
The petitioners filed petitions to condone a delay of over 2000 days in representing the appeals. The Court noted insufficient reasons for the delay initially. However, the Court acknowledged its liberal approach in condoning delays for both the Revenue and the assessee in the past. The Court emphasized that the prayer for condonation of delay is a matter between the appellant and the Court, not requiring the other side's involvement. The Court considered the reasons provided by the petitioners, including the sudden absence of the Accountant causing a small delay. Ultimately, the Court exercised discretion and condoned the delay, emphasizing the importance of deciding substantial questions of law without shunning away due to technicalities.

2. Benefit of VSV Scheme and Justification of canceling Form-3:
The respondent contended that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of the VSV Scheme due to misrepresentation of facts regarding pending appeals. The respondent cited Circular No.21 of 2020 issued by the CBDT and emphasized the lack of pending appeals as a prerequisite for the VSV Scheme. Additionally, the Revenue argued that they had a strong case on merits supported by various decisions. The Court considered these arguments but focused first on whether the assessee had made out a case for condonation of delay, which was eventually allowed.

3. Substantial questions of law under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The Court highlighted the importance of deciding substantial questions of law under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Despite acknowledging the delay in representing appeals and the reasons behind it, the Court exercised discretion and condoned the delay. The Court recognized the challenges faced by appellants due to various reasons, such as changes in jurisdiction leading to delays in filing or representing appeals. Ultimately, the Court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions, considering the significance of deciding substantial questions of law in appeals filed under Section 260A of the Act.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Madras High Court covers the issues of delay in representing appeals, condonation of delay, the benefit of the VSV Scheme, justification for canceling Form-3, the merits of the case, and the importance of deciding substantial questions of law under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.