9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest. We are of the opinion that, the delay of 2554 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee cannot be condoned. Accordingly, we dismiss the application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee and consequently, appeal of the assessee is also dismissed on the ground of delay. - ITA No.418/CTK/2018 - - - Dated:- 21-1-2020 - Shri C.M. Garg, JM And Shri L.P. Sahu, AM For the Assessee : Shri B.R.Panda, AR For the Revenue : Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR ORDER PER L.P.SAHU, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-I, Bhubaneswar, dated 04.10.2011 for assessment year 2009-2010. 2. As per the office note, the appeal of the assessee is barred by 2554 days. In this regard, ld. AR has filed an application for condonation of delay stating therein as under :- Before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack. In the matter of REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION, BHUBANESWAR, SACHIVALAYA MARG, BHUBANESWAR-751022, Financial Year - 2008-09 (Asst. Year - 2009-2010) TAN - BBNR00302B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period . The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 51 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated, and refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. 4. It may be stated here that Regional Institute of Education Mysore one of the other major constituent units of NCERT has raised objection against the order of the Assessing Officer (TDS) Mysore who took a view that status of the appellant could not be equated with that of a government department, Before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Mysore, and the issue was addressed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals] Mysore vide Order Dated 31/08/2017 who has accepted the contention of the Appellant on the primary issue pertaining to a question of fact tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore was beyond the reasonable control of the appellant REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION Bhubaneswar. 9. That, ordinarily the appellant INSTITUTE does not stand to benefit entering into litigation by lodging an appeal late. In the instant case, there being a meritorious matter which could be thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated when the delay is not condoned, the delay in filing of the appeal being not deliberate, intentional be condoned to meet the end of substantial justice to the appellant. 10. That under the circumstances the appellant prays that no delay of which beyond the control of the appellant INSTITUTE and humbly prays that the delay may be condoned. 11. That the appellant INSTITUTE craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to amend and or urge any other ground at the time of hearing. 12. That a personal hearing may kindly be extended to the appellant INSTITUTE. PRAYER In the context aforesaid and on the facts and particular circumstances of the case, it is prayed before your honour that the delay in filing the appeal by 2554 days be condoned, otherwise the appellant INSTITUTE may suffer genuine difficulties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fidavit. 6. That the Assessee in absence of proper legal advice could not take steps earlier and now in terms of the decision rendered by an appropriate Court of Law has filed the Appeal at a belated stage. However, delay in filing appeal is bonafide. The genuine belief about the applicability of Rule-3 of Income Tax Rules, 1962 regarding the perquisite value of the accommodation provided by the appellant to its employees considering the status of the appellant at par with that of a Central Government department was not accepted by the Assessing Officer, ACIT (TDS), Bhubaneswar nor by the CIT (Appeals)-I, Bhubaneswar. 7. That the same issue was raised by Regional Institute of Education, Mysore on the question of fact that whether the employees of the appellant could be construed as the employees of the Central Government or any other State Government for the purpose of claiming the benefit of the perquisite value for un furnished accommodation, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Mysore has construed the status of the appellant as a Central Government Organization for the purpose of calculation of perquisites and not as an autonomous body vide Order Dated 31/08/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsence of proper legal advice, the assessee could not file appeal earlier, therefore, prayed that delay occurred in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned and the appeal of the assessee may kindly be heard on merit. 5. On the other hand, ld. DR vehemently opposed to condone the huge delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and submitted that appeal of the assessee deserves to be dismissed on the delay ground only. 6. After hearing both the sides and perusing the condonation application along with affidavit filed by the assessee, we find that the appeal of the assessee is barred by 2554 days. In this regard, ld. AR in the application and affidavit has mentioned that the claim of the assessee for perquisite value of the accommodation provided by the assessee to its employees considering the status of the assessee at par with that of a Central Government Department, was rejected by the AO (TDS), Bhubaneswar. Thereafter in appellate proceedings, the CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar also upheld the action of AO vide order dated 04.10.2011. Against which the assessee would have to come in second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within a period of sixty days from the date on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, although the applicant being Acquiring Body, was arrayed as opponent in the said reference, the opponent no. 4 herein (Original Opponent No. 1) S.L.A.O. or his subordinate contested the said reference by filing written statement. Therefore, this applicant was unaware about the stand taken by S.L.A.O. as well as the impugned judgment and award. This averment in the application on the face of it is totally incorrect. The Law Judiciary Department as early as on 13.4.2000 i.e. to say within the period of 15 days from the date of the award of the Reference Court communicated its decision to acquiesce in the decision of the Reference Court and communicated the same to all the concerned including the beneficiary of the acquisition. It is not the case that the Executive Engineer did not receive the said communication. Having received the said communication the respondent did not act in the matter and initiated any steps for filing the appeals if it was really aggrieved by the decision of the Reference Court. There is no doubt whatsoever in our mind that the respondent made totally incorrect statement in the application filed in the High Court. We express our reservation as to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficient cause for not preferring the appeals within the prescribed time? Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for extension of prescribed period of limitation in certain cases and confers jurisdiction upon the court to admit any application or any appeal after the prescribed period if it is satisfied that the appellant or applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring such appeal or application within the prescribed period. 14. In the present case the Reference Court passed the award under Section 18 of the Act on 09.03.2000. On 13.04.2000 itself the Government took decision not to prefer any appeal against the decree and award passed by the Reference Court and accordingly communicated its decision to all the concerned including the respondent. The Government vide its order dated 21.05.2001 refused to review its decision and accordingly informed the same to the respondent beneficiary of acquisition. The respondent beneficiary in its application seeking condonation of delay refers to the letter dated 19.11.2003 issued by the Secretary, Irrigation Department, directing it to obtain legal advice from an advocate to initiate appropriate proceedings. The respondent ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quisition did not initiate any steps whatsoever before expiry of limitation and no circumstances are placed before the court that steps were taken to file appeals but it was not possible to file the appeals within time. 18. Shri Mohta, learned senior counsel relying on the decision of this court in N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123] submitted that length of delay is no matter, acceptability of explanation is the only criterion. It was submitted that if the explanation offered does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of dilatory tactics the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. The very said decision upon which reliance has been placed holds that the law of limitation fixes a life span for every legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury suffered. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of Limitation is thus founded on public policy. The decision does not lay down that a lethargic litigant can leisurely choose his own time in preferring appeal or application as the case may be. On the other hand, in the said judgment it is said that court should not f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alysis of the judgment. 21. Submissions based on public interest and involvement of public money: The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of this court in Union of India vs. Balbir Singh and ors. [2000 (10)SCC 611] in support of his submission that the courts should be liberal in condoning the delay particularly whenever public interest and public money is involved. All that the said decision states is that in the circumstances of the case the court was inclined to condone the delay, particularly, because it is in the public interest as public money is involved. The facts are not evident from the judgment and as to what were those public interest parameters that were taken into consideration to condone the delay in filing appeals. 22. Basically the laws of Limitation are founded on public policy. In Halsbury's Laws of England,4th Ed., Vol.28,p.266,para 605, the policy of the Limitation Acts is laid down as follows: The courts have expressed at least three different reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitation, namely,(i) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them, (ii) that a defendant might ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought to be kept in mind by the courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Dragging the land loosers to courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest. 25. It is true when the State and its instrumentalities are the applicants seeking condonation of delay they may be entitled to certain amount of latitude but the law of limitation is same for citizen and for Governmental authorities. Limitation Act does not provide for a different period to the government in filing appeals or applications as such. It would be a different matter where the Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or collusion on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross purposes with it. In a given case if any such facts are pleaded or proved they cannot be excluded from considerat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
