2023 (10) TMI 402 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay in filling appeal before High court - Huge delay of 1072 days - ' sufficient cause' of delay or not? - HELD THAT - As discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case and that, the expression 'sufficient cause' cannot be liberally interpreted, if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. In the present case, the petitioner/appellant has not given 'sufficient cause' for condoning the huge delay of 1072 days in filing the appeals. It is also to be pointed out that the appeals were filed along with condone delay petitions in the year 2012 itself. By order dated 14.09.2012, notice was ordered to the respondent in the condone delay petitions. Subsequently, on two occasions, in March, 2015, the matter stood adjourned for filing counter by the respondent. Thereafter, nothing moved and the appellant has not taken any step to follow up the same, till June 2023. Now, they suddenly woke up from slumber like Rip Wan Winkle and prayed to condone the delay in filing the appeals. Such callous and lackadaisical attitude on the part of the appellant, cannot be countenanced by this court. The Supreme Court in Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project 2008 (11) TMI 611 - SUPREME COURT observed that the courts help those, who are vigilant and do not slumber over their rights . Therefore, we are not inclined to condone the delay of 1072 days in filing the appeals.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the issue of condonation of delay in filing appeals against a common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment years 1994-95 & 1995-96.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay
The petitioner filed miscellaneous petitions to condone the delay of 1072 days in filing the appeals. The petitioner argued that pursuing alternate remedy under the Act constituted a reasonable cause for the delay. They also mentioned a change in counsel and a mistake in the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as reasons for the delay. The respondent opposed the relief, stating that the petitioner failed to provide valid reasons for condoning the delay. The court emphasized the need for a "sufficient cause" to explain the delay, citing legal precedents. The court found the reasons provided insufficient to condone the significant delay, especially considering the lack of diligence on the petitioner's part.

Issue 2: Judicial Discretion
The court highlighted the importance of exercising judicial discretion judiciously in cases of condonation of delay. Referring to legal precedents, the court emphasized that negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides on the part of the party seeking condonation cannot be overlooked. The court noted that the petitioner filed the appeals with delay petitions in 2012 but did not actively pursue the matter for several years. The court criticized the petitioner's lackadaisical attitude and cited a Supreme Court observation that courts assist those who are vigilant about their rights. Ultimately, the court refused to condone the 1072-day delay in filing the appeals.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the miscellaneous petitions, stating that the reasons provided were insufficient to justify condoning the delay. The tax case appeals were rejected at the SR stage, and no costs were awarded in this matter.