TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at ITO, Ward-2, Ferozepur, had sent the appeal to Tribunal through Shri Faquir Chand, Chowkidar, for delivering the same to the Tribunal vide his letter dt. 8th July, 1998. The appeal papers indicated that the same was delivered on 8th July, 1998. When asked, Shri Faquir Chand is unable to remember the name of a person to whom it was delivered. Therefore, the CIT has pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. These submissions made in the application were repeated by the learned Departmental Representative at the time of hearing of the appeal. However, his attention was drawn to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798 and judgment of Punjab Haryana High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sufficient cause for not presenting it within the limitation period. Therefore, the exercise of discretion vested with the Tribunal is subject to appellant satisfying the Tribunal that delay was caused due to a sufficient cause. Now in this case, we find that the approach of the revenue in explaining the delay in filing the appeal is lackadaiscial. Firstly, the appeal was sent through a Chowkidar, who hardly knew the importance of filing these papers within time. The appeal should have been sent through a responsible official like inspector of even through a clerk or some other responsible educated person working in the office of an ITO. Even after the said Chowkidar returned to the office of ITO, nobody tried to verify whether the said app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is shows a very casual and non-serious approach of the Department and the delay appears to be an act of gross negligence. 6. In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to some of the judicial pronouncements on the issue of delay in filing the appeals. In the case of Hind Development Corpn. v. ITO [1979] 118 ITR 873, the Calcutta High Court held that a Tribunal can condone the delay if there was sufficient cause for the delay in the submission of the appeal. In the case of Vadabai ( supra ) it was held that while exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limiatain Act, 1963, to condone delay for sufficient cause in not filing the appeal within the period prescribed, Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
