TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, for the appellant in Notice of Motion No. 3319 of 2008. R. Ashokan with P. S. Sahadevan for the appellant in Notice of Motion Nos. 3926, 3931, 3932, 3933, 3936 and 3937 of 2008. J. S. Saluja for the appellant in Notice of Motion No. 3928 of 2008. Parag Vyas for the appellant in Notice of Motion Nos. 4051, 4054 and 4056 of 2008. R. Murlidharan, instructed by Rajesh Shah and Co., for the Respondent in Notice of Motion No. 3319 of 2008. B. V. Jhaveri for the respondent in Notice of Motion No. 3926 of 2008. P. C. Tripathi with A. K Jasani for the respondent in Notice of Motion Nos. 3928, 3931, 3932, 3933, 3936 and 3937 and 4054 of 2008. B. Damodar, instructed by Kanga and Co., for the respondent in Notice of Motion Nos. 4051 and 4056 of 2008. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by 1. SWATANTER KUMAR C. J .- By this order, we will dispose of the above referred 11 notices of motion taken out by the Commissioner of Income tax, Mumbai, for condonation of delay in filing Interest-tax Appeal No. 10 of 2007 and income-tax appeals being Income-tax Appeals (Lodging) Nos. 2807 of 2008, 9 of 2008, 3216 of 2008, 3215 of 2008, 3212 of 2008, 29 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 of 2008, the affidavits filed are almost identical in terms in all these cases. In Notices of Motion Nos. 3931 of 2008, 3932 of 2008 and 3933 of 2008, the order was passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on May 30, 2006 and is stated to have been received by the office of the Commissioner of Income-tax on June 14, 2006. The scrutiny report was called for which was sent on October 10, 2006. It has nowhere beer explained as to what steps were taken by the Department for preparing the so-called scrutiny report during the intervening period of four months. This report, however, was received in the office of the Commissioner o Income-tax on October 11, 2006 and then the file was sent to the pane counsel for drafting the memo of appeal, which, according to the Department, was received on August 14, 2008. Thereafter, some time was taken ii finalising the appeal and the appeal was filed on August 29, 2008, whereas the last date for filing the appeal was October 12, 2006. The application for condonation of delay was opposed by the non-applicants as the delay is each of these cases is 411, 687, 656 and 883 days. In our view, no explanation has been rendered in the affidavits which wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment Departments should function in a properly mechanised manner and not to act so casually that because of its inaction or misdeeds, the public exchequer is made to suffer…. 20. The law of procedure undisputedly takes in its ambit and scope the need to act expeditiously and not to delay the progress of the legal proceedings. The law of limitation stricto sensu is not law of procedure simpliciter but has the effect of creating a legal bar in exercise of a right which otherwise would have been available to a party but for lapse of time. As already noticed, the law of limitation is b on public policy and helps effective and proper administration of justice. It is expected of every litigant and particularly the litigants have large litigation who have their own legal Department and channels, to act within the period of limitation. It is only by way o exception and upon showing sufficient cause that appeals, if other wise permissible, could be entertained beyond the prescribed pc of limitation. It also be noticed that in the case of State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality , AIR 1972 SC 749, Supreme Court held that the expression 'sufficient cause' should rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cause" will always have relevancy to reasonableness. The actions which can be condoned by the court should fall within the realm of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. It is neither expected nor can it be a normal conduct of a public servant or a litigant that they would keep the files unmoved, unprocessed for months together on their tables. Some extent of public accountability and responsibility will have to be the basis for looking into such con duct. The consequences of such inordinate delay can be very fatal besides rendering remedy barred by law also leads to loss of public exchequer. This aspect of the matter introduces larger responsibility and consciousness in the conduct of the affairs of the Revenue Department. Certain amount of leverage or relaxation for Departmental functions would be permissible, but this cannot be extended to the limits protecting negligence and irresponsibility simpliciter. For example, in Notice of Motion No. 2335 of 2008, the copy was received on December 6, 2006. The prescribed period of limitation was permitted to expire. There is nothing in the application to say what steps were taken before April 4, 2007, when the appeal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot take months and years. In the cases where the delay is more than 400 days or above 1000 days, there has been no justification, much less a sufficient cause shown, for condonation of delay. In these cases, where inordinate delay is unexplained, explanation given either is fanciful or opposed to normal course of human conduct and official conduct coupled with element of negligence and irresponsible attitude. Vague explanation or in some cases no explanation further adds to the gravity of the situation in the Department of Revenue. 25 . In the appeals preferred by the Department, obviously before the appellant approaches the High Court, they have exhibited three different levels under the Act, i.e., order of the Assessing Officer order of the Commissioner of Appeals and then the order of the Tribunal. Recourse to special remedy under section 260A of the Income-tax Act which specifies the period of limitation, the appellants are expected to act with responsibility and vigilance. In all these cases the distinction in the case to be founded on the extent of the delay unexplained and inordinate delay and the negligence and casual attitude of the officers/officials dealing with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... future and to fix the responsibility of the defaulting officers as the appeals cannot be permitted to become time-barred as a matter of routine since it involved the question of Government revenue. Thus, all these cases have been filed after the pronouncement of the order in that case, still no care has been taken to comply with the directions of the court. The affidavits filed render no proper explanation. It is not even referred to in the affidavits whether the Department has cared to fix the responsibility of the erring officers who have permitted the appeals to become bar by time as a result of sheer negligence and carelessness If the officers would have acted timely, the appeals would not have become barred by time. The officer claims to have taken over the post in July 2007, and as already noticed that knowing fully aware that the appeals have become barred by time, still it took more than one year for the Department to file these appeals. This inordinate delay in filing the appeals has remained unexplained. The only apparent cause for such serious delay is the callous, irresponsible style of functioning in the Department: The principle of public accountability makes the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
