ORNATE TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order, we propose to dispose of 44 Notice of Motions, all filed in the Income Tax Appeals preferred against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Notice of Motion Nos.2281 of 2008 in Income Tax Appeal (Lodging) No.1814 of 2008 has been filed by the Assessee while remaining 43 Notice of Motions have been filed by the Commissioner(s) of Income Tax. The prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeals vary from 18 days to 1474 days. Normally, we would have proceeded to deal with each application separately but the grounds for condonation of delay noted by Commissioner(s) of Income Tax are more or less common and, in fact, in most of the cases identical, hence we propose to discuss some of them in detail. Notices of Motion Nos. 2330 of 2008, 1898 of 2008, 2335 of 2008 and 2059 of 2008 have been filed by the Commissioner(s) of Income Tax while Notice of Motion Nos. 2281 of 2008 has been filed by the Assessee.

(2.) THERE is no dispute to the proposition of law before us that the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable to the appeals filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act. Once the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable, the entire controversy would revolve on the showing or not of sufficient cause while praying for condonation of delay. In other words, where there is sufficient cause shown and the application for condonation of delay has been moved bonafidely, the court would normally condone the delay but where the delay has not been explained at all and, in fact, there is unexplained and inordinate delay coupled with negligence or sheer carelessness, the discretion of the court in such cases would normally tilt against the applicant. It really would not make much difference whether the applicant before the Court is a Government Department or is a private individual. Of course, as per the settled principles, the courts are inclined to show greater indulgence to the departments of the Government because of inter and intra departmental steps to be taken before initiation of a legal proceedings by the department, but this indulgence has its own limitations and cannot be extended without any reasonable cause and that too beyond the permissible time. The period of limitation has to be construed somewhat strictly and advantages that accrue to non-applicant would normally not been taken away in a routine manner or for no plausible cause or reason.

(3.) FIRSTLY we will proceed to discuss the cause shown in the affidavits in support of Notices of Motion filed by the Commissioner(s) of Income tax. In the affidavits filed in support of the Notice of Motion No.2330 of 2008, it is averred that the order of the Tribunal was passed on 9.1.2008. The last date of filing the appeal was 29th May, 2008 but the same was filed on 16.6.2008. In para 4 of the said affidavit, a synopsis of the details of different actions taken by the department have been given. The Chief Commissioner had granted approval for filing of the appeal under section 260A, in the High Court, on 14.5.2008. Thereafter draft appeal was prepared and ultimately, the appeal was filed in the court on 16th June, 2008. Similarly, in all other cases, except Notice of Motion No.2335 of 2008, similar grounds have been taken praying for condonation of delay. According to the applicants, the time was taken on the table of one officer or the other in drafting appeals, approval of the Chief Commissioner and in some cases, the files were not attended/dealt with for a considerable time. An additional ground taken in that Notice of Motion was non-availability of the court fee stamps for some duration. It will be useful at this stage itself to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the affidavits in which the delay has occurred right from 190 days to above 1000 days.