TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 36
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r condonation of delay in filing the Appeals is more or less similar, as such the above Notices of Motion can be disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Initially, when the appeals were filed, the same were dismissed as barred by limitation by this Court vide order dated 2nd July, 2009. It is pertinent to note that at that time, no notices of motion was taken out by the Department for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. Even in the memo of appeals no material facts and/or particulars were disclosed giving explanation for delay in filing the appeals. In the circumstances, for want of notices of motion as well as for want of sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay, the above Appeals were dismissed by this Court being barred by limitation by the said order dated 2nd July, 2009. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 2nd July, 2009, the appellant (Commissioner of Income Tax-5) filed SLPs before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court issued certain directions in the said SLPs`. The Hon'ble Supreme Court ultimately, whilst disposing of the SLPs passed the following order on 1st September, 2010 : " In these cases, Action Taken R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the Panel were neither drafting the appeals to be filed in time nor representing the cases properly it was proposed to change the entire panel of Counsel sometime in November, 2007 and a process for selection of fresh Counsel was initiated by way of Notification on the Income Tax website. Sometime, in June, 2008, the CBDT approved the shortlist of the advocates as Department Counsel and the new panel was accordingly formed in the month of July, 2008 and thereafter the appeal proposals were given to the Panel Counsel and accordingly appeals were filed. It is averred in the affidavits that from the record available in the office there was no documentary evidence to show the exact movement of judicial folders/records, consequent to de-linking of judicial work from the Ministry of Law, among different authorities/officials between 18th October, 2006 and the date of filing of the appeals. It is further stated that non satisfactory representation by the old Panel Counsel and transfer of 3 assessing officers i.e. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), Mumbai between the period 2004 to 2008 contributed to the delay in filing of the appeals before this Court. 6. Further affidavits in support of motions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filing the Appeals, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, there was sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. The learned ASG has taken us through the three Action Taken Reports, which were submitted to the Hon'ble Supreme Court which inter alia sets out details of the reasons for the delay, fixation of responsibility for the delay caused and the remedial action taken. The said reports are annexed as Exhibits to the supplementary affidavits. The learned ASG submitted that insofar as the delay at the hands of the Counsel on behalf of the revenue is concerned, the Department cannot be penalized for the inaction of the Counsel. The learned ASG therefore urged that considering the facts and circumstances of the case as set out in the affidavits in support of the motions, the delay may be condoned. 9. The learned ASG has relied on the following judgments in support of his contention that in such matters a liberal view is required to be taken to advance the cause of justice particularly where the reasons for the delay as set out in the affidavits in support of motions were bonafide and also in support of his contention that the party should not be made to suffer for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner of Income Tax & Others Vs. Reliance Capital Ltd. & Others, (2009) 225 CTR (Bom.) 275. 3. Union of India Vs. Tata Yodogawa Limited, 1988 (38) E.L.T. 339 (S.C.). 4. The State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality and others etc., AIR 1972 S.C. 749. 11. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. We have also gone through the amended Finance Act No. 14 of 2010 which provides that the delay can be condoned if sufficient cause is made out. It is by now trite that in cases of condonation of delay, there cannot be any straight jacket formula and the cases have to be decided on their own merits. Indeed, there has been substantial delay on the part of the Revenue in filing the above appeals, which ranges from 1000 to 1543 days. Infact as mentioned above, the aforesaid appeals had also been dismissed at one stage on 2-7-2009 and the Revenue had filed SLPs before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the matters were ultimately remitted back to this Court by granting an opportunity to the Department to explain the delay. Insofar as the three Action Taken Reports are concerned, we find that the Department has taken rem....