2017 (5) TMI 581 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay of 326 days - Held that - Actual matrix in this case seeking condonation of inordinate delay of 326 days in filing and 1334 days in refiling the appeal we do not find any merit in the same. The question regarding whether there is sufficient cause or not depends upon each case and primarily is a question of fact to be considered taking totality of events which had taken place in a particular case. In the present case after appreciating the matter it cannot be said that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Tribunal had decided the matter on 25.11.2011. However the appeal before this Court was required to be filed within the stipulated period of limitation. However the appellant instead of filing the appeal within time filed an application which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.10.2012. But the appellant filed the appeal on 27.2.2013 before this Court after the delay of 326 days and lastly refiled on 7/8.2.2017 after a colossal delay of 1334 days. The plea of the appellant would not satisfy the test of sufficient cause. The explanation of the appellant praying for condonation of delay in filing and refiling the appeal as noticed hereinabove is bereft of sufficient cause for delay caused in filing the appeal. Further a stale matter cannot be revived by approaching the Court belatedly. Thus applications for condonation of 326 days delay in filing and 1334 days in refiling the appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing and refiling the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis:

1. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2006-07. The appeal was delayed by 326 days and later refiled after a delay of 1334 days. The primary issue was whether there existed sufficient cause for condonation of these delays.

2. The legal position concerning condonation of delay under Section 5 of the 1963 Act was examined. Referring to judgments such as Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, the court highlighted the importance of the "sufficient cause" criterion. The court emphasized that the law of limitation aims to preserve legal remedies within a specified time frame and that the courts have the discretion to condone delay if justified.

3. The court considered the individualistic nature of the "sufficient cause" test as discussed in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari. It was emphasized that no standard or objective test exists, and each case must be evaluated based on its unique circumstances. The applicant must demonstrate reasonable diligence in pursuing the appeal and show that the delay was beyond their control.

4. The appellant argued that the delays in filing and refiling the appeal were unintentional and due to circumstances beyond their control. However, upon examining the facts, the court found no merit in the appellant's plea for condonation of delay. The court noted that the appellant failed to provide sufficient cause for the significant delays in filing and refiling the appeal.

5. Ultimately, the court dismissed the applications for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The court emphasized that a stale matter cannot be revived by approaching the court belatedly, underscoring the importance of adhering to statutory timelines in legal proceedings.