9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue remains under mistaken impression that being government department, all its laxities deserve to be ignored by the court. At the same time, we are also unable to clearly read in or rule out a conscious decision on the part of the responsible quarters of revenue to extend covert advantage to the assessee by filing the appeals with inordinate delay and that too, without any application seeking condonation of the delay. Be it the former or the latter, we find no reason in the present case to extend any further latitude to the appellant/revenue at the cost of frustration of the assessee, who certainly had reasons to believe across this period of three years that the revenue had accepted the decision of the Tribunal. The circumstances enumerated in the affidavits dated 17.05.2023 of the appellant/revenue as aforesaid, sound merely an excuse and not an explanation of delay. As discussed hereafter, none of the dates and stages recorded above can be accepted by any stretch of imagination as disclosure of factors beyond the control of the revenue and thereby sufficient cause which led to delay in filing the appeals. Coming to the explanation of time spent between 12.02.2021 (when earlier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in re-filing the respective appeals as captioned after removal of defects raised by the Registry of this court. Despite the original filing of these appeals being beyond prescribed period of time, no specific application for condonation of delay in filing the appeals was filed with either of these appeals. Vide order dated 19.12.2022, learned counsel for the appellant/revenue sought and was allowed to file an affidavit containing better particulars to explain the delay between the date of the receipt of the impugned orders and institution of the earlier appeals (which were dismissed as withdrawn on 12.02.2021), and the delay which occurred thereafter. Accordingly, two affidavits, both dated 17.05.2023 were filed in these appeals. 2. We heard learned counsel for both sides and examined the records mainly on the aspect of delay in original filing of these present appeals, before considering the delay in re-filing the same after removal of Registry objections. 3. Both these appeals brought under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act by the revenue assail the common order dated 15.03.2019 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, whereby appeals of the revenue against the assessee (responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay in filing these appeals. 6. We are of the considered view that the appellant/revenue ought to have filed a formal application seeking condonation of delay so as to enable the rival side effectively respond, which was not done. But that in itself cannot be a ground to throw out the appeals as time barred. If from material available on record the court is satisfied that an appellant was precluded by a sufficient cause from filing the appeal within prescribed period, the delay can be condoned even on oral request. It is against this backdrop that the appellant/revenue was allowed to file affidavits as detailed above. The question is as to whether the dates and stages enlisted in the said affidavits successfully set up a case that there was sufficient cause which precluded the appellant/revenue from filing the appeals within the prescribed period. 7. At this stage, it would be apposite to briefly traverse through the relevant legal position. 7.1 As stipulated in Section 260A(1) of the Act, from every order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, an appeal shall lie to the High Court if the High Court is satisfied that it involves a substantial question of law. The provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances of a particular event, allowing the person to point out that something which has happened is not his fault. Between explanation and excuse , there is a distinction which, though fine, is real. An excuse is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack and it is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an excuse would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true. 7.4 In the case of Finolux Auto Pvt. Ltd. vs Finolex Cables Ltd., 136 (2007) DLT 585 (DB), a Division Bench of this court held thus: 6. In this regard, we may refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in P.K. Ramachandran vs State of Kerala, IV(1997) CLT 95 (SC). In the said decision, the Supreme Court has held that unless and until a reasonable or satisfactory explanation is given, the inordinate delay should not be condoned. In para 6 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has laid down in the following manner: Law of Limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efinite consequences on the rights and obligations of party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly. 27. . . 35. The expression sufficient cause implies the presence of legal and adequate reasons. The word sufficient means adequate enough, as much as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. It embraces no more than that which provides a plentitude which, when done, suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the light of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eported as UOI vs Mangat, noticing the judgments of the Apex Court where delay was condoned observed thus: 4. ...The Supreme Court was thus concerned with isolated cases of said aberrations. What we are facing in this Court is a spate of delayed appeals without any proper and convincing explanation or even an attempt in doing so. It is a common experience of Benches of this Court that the condonation applications are in a cyclostyled form and only the dates and days are filled in hand. The stay applications are also mechanically drafted and are in one standard cyclostyled form. Usually, the appeals are filed with defects. After the Registry points out the defects, the defects are not removed for months together. We do not think that the Supreme Court judgments can be usefully availed of by the Union of India in the colossal situation of negligence and delays as we find in this Court. In fact, it appears that the liberal approach of the higher courts and the understanding of the difficulties of the Government departments shown by the courts have not been appreciated in its proper perspective by the Government departments. Nobody in the Government Department feels any responsibility ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to condone the delay howsoever large and unjustifiable it may be should be avoided. The discretion has to be exercised on the basis of the facts of each case with common sense and public interest in view. (emphasis is ours) 7.9 Recently, in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654 , the Hon ble Supreme Court observed thus : 3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Anr vs. Mst. Katiji Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under: 27) 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 Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing the appeal. 8. Falling back to the present case, copy of the impugned common order dated 15.03.2019 having been admittedly received in the office of PCIT (Central-2) on 11.04.2019, the limitation period to file these appeals expired on 09.08.2019, while the present appeals were filed on 27.05.2022. According to the appellant/revenue, earlier also it had filed appeals against the presently impugned common order but the same were withdrawn with liberty to file fresh appeals. The said earlier appeals were signed according to the appellant/revenue on 14.10.2019 for being filed. However, the appellant/revenue did not disclose in their affidavits the dates when those earlier appeals were filed. Here, it would be significant to keep in mind that the unfortunate pandemic of Covid-19 commenced in India much later in the month of March, 2020. 9. The lack of sincerity, or rather complete absence thereof on the part of appellant/revenue in this case is glaringly conspicuous by their having not even filed an application seeking condonation of this colossal delay of about 03 years in filing these appeals, that too despite having faced a situation where they had to withdraw the earlier ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent/assessee strongly objected to grant of liberty, but the coordinate bench was pleased to allow liberty to file the appeals afresh on account of technical defects in those appeals. Despite having withdrawn those appeals in such circumstances on 12.02.2021, the appellant/revenue filed the present appeals after a delay of more than one year on 27.05.2022. 10.3 Coming to the explanation of time spent between 12.02.2021 (when earlier appeals were withdrawn) and 27.05.2022 (when the present appeals were filed), the explanation rendered on behalf of the appellant/revenue is that after withdrawal of the earlier appeals, it is only on 06.01.2022 that legal opinion of the Standing Counsel was sought. There is not even a whiff of explanation as to why it took almost one year for the appellant/revenue to seek legal opinion from Standing Counsel, that too when earlier the appeals had already been filed but had to be withdrawn merely on account of technical defect. 10.4 Further, after obtaining the legal opinion on 10.01.2022, it took further two months for the CIT to scrutinize the impugned common order on 09.03.2022 so as to direct the Standing Counsel to prepare draft appeal. The said draf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icted functioning of courts in Delhi. By way of Office Order dated 23.03.2020, the Administrative and General Supervision Committee of this court suspended the functioning of this court and the subordinate courts of Delhi till 04.04.2020. Thereafter, the suspension of work was extended periodically by way of various officer orders and circulars. The said suspension of work was tapered down and gradually complete functioning of the courts resumed. Across major part of this period, Registry of this court remained functioning and in any case, online filing of cases continued. Finally, with effect from 31.08.2021 even physical hearings in this court were resumed vide office order dated 19.08.2021. The present appeals, as mentioned above were filed on 20.05.2022 and 27.05.2022. Therefore, on this count also, we are unable to find any ground to exercise discretion of condonation of delay in favour of the appellant/revenue. 13. There is another aspect relevant in order to ascertain the diligence or lack thereof on the part of the appellant/revenue in filing these appeals. Had the earlier filed appeals (which were dismissed as withdrawn on 12.02.2021) been filed within the prescribed perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
