9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15th April, 2016 was received by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune on 5th July, 2016. Thereafter, on 11th July, 2016 it was forwarded to the Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Exemptions) ('Applicant' for short) i.e. the officer having jurisdiction over this case; (b) Thereafter, the papers were transferred/handed over by the Applicant to the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune [(however, no date of transfer to the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions) is mentioned)]; (c) On 21st September, 2016 the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax prepared his report which was approved by the Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax. Thereafter, sent on 29th September, 2016 to the Applicants; (d) On receipt of the above reports, the Applicant forwarded it to the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi for approval (however no date of forwarding it is mentioned). (e) Approval from the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi was received by the applicant on 29th May, 2017 (no date mentioned of when the approval was granted by New Delhi); (f) Thereafter, this appeal was filed on 20th July, 2017. 3. The Affidavits further state that, the Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was taking to expedite the approval process. Further, there is no proper explanation for the delay after having received the approval from the Chief Commissioner of Delhi on 29th May, 2017. No explanation was offered in the affidavits dated 16th September, 2017 for having filed the appeal on 20th July, 2017 i.e. almost after two months. The additional affidavits also does not explain the delay except stating that the delay was as the Advocate to whom the papers were sent for drafting asked for some document without giving particulars. Thus, we are not satisfied with the reasons set out in the Affidavits and additional Affidavits in support so as to condone the delay in filing the accompanying Appeal. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General and Others V/s. Living Media India Ltd. and Another, reported in (2012) 348 ITR 7 (SC) while dealing with the condonation of delay application by the State, has observed as under :- "12. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Walve, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue, submitted that the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in Living Media India Ltd (supra) would not apply in case of tax appeals. In support, he invited our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-II V/s. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Ltd. reported in (2010) 15 Supreme Court Cases page 242 wherein the Apex Court in an order passed on 10th December, 2010 while condoning the delay passed the following order :- "1. By consent, the matter is taken up for hearing. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. Delay condoned. Leave granted. 2. Looking to the amount of tax involved in this case, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have decided the matter on merits. In all such cases, where there is delay on the part of the Department, we request the High Court to consider imposing costs but certainly it should examine the cases on merits and should not dispose of cases merely on the ground of delay, particularly when huge stakes are involved. 3. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court to decide the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Court had observed that looking at the tax amount involved in all such cases, where there is delay on the part of the department, the High Court was requested to consider condonding the delay by imposing costs and examine the case on merits. It is sought to be contended by the Revenue that where large amounts are involved, the Revenue should, as a matter of right, be heard on merits of its appeal and the delay should be condoned on payment of costs. Such a reading would be rendering Section 260A(2A) of the Act which came into the statute by the Finance Act, 2010 with retrospective effect of 1998 completely otiose/redundant. Sub-section (2A) of the Section 260A of the Act allows the Court to admit an appeal beyond the period of limitation, if it is satisfied there is sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. The judgment has to be read in consonance with the Act. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Ltd. (supra) is without doubt binding upon us and we are bound to follow it. However, the Apex Court decision in West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Ltd., (supra) according to us, does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the State and the citizen. 12. One more submission made on behalf of the Revenue is that, the respondents have been served and they have chosen not to appear. Therefore, it must necessarily follow that they have no objection to the delay being condoned and the Appeal being entertained. Thus, it is submitted that the delay be condoned and the appeal be heard on merits. This submission ignores the fact that the object of the law of limitation is to bring certainty and finality to litigation. This is based on the Maxim "interest reipublicae sit finis litium" i.e. for the general benefit of the community at large, because the object is every legal remedy must be alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. The object is to get on with life, if you have failed to file an appeal within the period provided by the Statute. It is for the general benefit of the entire community so as to ensure that stale and old matters are not agitated and the party who is aggrieved by an order can expeditiously move higher forum to challenge the same, if he is aggrieved by it. As observed by the Apex Court in many cases, the law assist those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
