9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion have been entertained by us, where the delay has been sufficiently explained such as in cases of bonafide mistake, malafide action of the Officer of the State etc. However, to seek that the period of limitation provided in the statute be ignored in case of Revenue's appeals cannot be accepted. The Appeals which are filed by the Revenue in this Court under Section 260A of the Act are very large in number and on an average over 2000 per year from the orders of the Tribunal. Thus, the officers of the Revenue should be well aware of the statutory provisions and the period of limitation and should pursue its remedies diligently. - Notice of Motion No. 1779 of 2017 in Income Tax Appeal (Lodg) No. 2320 of 2017 Alongwith Notice of Motion No. 1783 of 2017 in Income Tax Appeal (Lodg) No. 2319 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 1-3-2018 - M.S. SANKLECHA, SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ. Mr. Sham Walve, Advocate for the applicant, original appellant. None for the respondent despite service. P.C. :- 1. These two Notices of Motion have been taken out for condonation of 318 days delay in filing two Appeals from the common impugned order dated 15 th April, 2016 passed by the Income-Tax Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se additional Affidavits were filed in support of the Motion. These additional Affidavits seek to explain the delay by stating that on receipt of the approval on 29th May, 2017 the papers were sent to the Counsel who asked for certain papers and the draft was obtained by him only on 30th August, 2017. This again is without any particulars. The additional affidavit states that for subsequent Assessment Year 2010-11, the Revenue has filed its Appeal within the period of limitation. 5. We find that, there is no proper explanation for the delay on the part of the Applicant. Infact, the affidavits dated 16th September, 2017 states that, the Applicant handed over the papers to his subordinate i.e. the Deputy Commissioner. This is also put in as one of the reasons for the delay. This even though when they appear to be a part of the same office. In any case, the date on which it was handed over to the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune is not indicated. Further, the affidavit dated 16th September, 2017 also does not explain the period of time during which the proposal was pending before the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi for approval. The Chief Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. 13. In our view, 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 there 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 law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter arising in an tax Appeal. Besides, he submits the decision in Living Media Ltd. (supra) was of a two Member Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while the decision in West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Ltd. (supra) was of a Three Member Bench and in the absence of the aforesaid decision being brought to the attention of the Supreme Court in the case of Living Media Ltd. they had no occasion to consider the same. Thus, the decision of the Apex Court in Living Media Ltd. (supra) is per-incuriam. Mr. Walve, further places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in G. Ramegowda, Major and Others V/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, reported in (1988) 2 Supreme Court Cases page 142 to contend as observed therein that even though the law of limitation is same for a private citizen, as well as, government authority, invites our attention to the following observation : While a private person can take instant decision a bureaucratic or democratic organ it is said by a learned Judge hesitates and debates, consults and considers, speaks through paper, moves horizontally and vertically till at last it gravitates towards a conclusion, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Apex Court in Living Media (supra) is not per incuriam as submitted by the Revenue. In any case, as a lower Court it is not open for us to disregard the decision of the Apex Court in Living Media (supra) as per incuriam. Therefore, the submission on behalf of the Revenue cannot be accepted that in the appeals by the Revenue, the delay has to be condoned, if large amounts are involved, on payment of costs. Therefore, according to us, each case for condonation of delay would have to be decided on the basis of the explanation offered for the delay i.e. is it bonafide or not, concocted or not or does it evidence negligence or not. 11. Further, the decision of the Apex Court in G. Ramegowda (supra) was a subject matter of consideration by the decision of the Apex Court in Living Media Ltd (supra). In the latter case, the observations in G. Ramegowda (supra) of the State possessing an impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology leading to delay was found not acceptable in view of the modern technologies being used and available to the State. Further, in G. Ramegowda, the Apex Court had inter-alia observed that that the malafides of the officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
