9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... There was delay of 2005 days in filing such appeal. To explain such delay in an application separately filed by the Revenue, it was stated inter-alia that : "In this case for AY 2004-05 the assessment proceedings was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 28/12/2006. The Assessing officer, in his assessment order had made disallowance under section 36(1)(vii), 35D and addition of the EMI residual income. The total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.36,12,51,530/- as against the returned income of Rs.12,18,86,540/-. The assessee preferred appeal against the assessment order and the ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 04/04/2007 deciding the appeal of the assessee confirmed the disallowance made u/s.36(i)(vii) but deleted the disallowance made u/s.35D and the addition of the EMI residual income. The order of ld CIT(A) in Appeal No.CIT(A)VIII/ AC-4/ 313/2006-07 dated 04/04/2007 was received in the CIT's office on 24/04/2007 and the then CIT, Ahmedabad II, Ahmedabad vide letter No.16/42/007-08 dated 13.06.2007 had directed the then ACT, Circle-4 Ahmedabad to file appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT against the order of ld CIT(A).The last date to file the appeal was conveyed as 20/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 20.06.2007. However, the appeal could not be filed before this date and it remained to be filed before the Appellate Tribunal till it came to be pointed out to the Assessing Officer from the office of CIT(DR) in the month of October 2012. While considering the appeal of the respondent assessee for the same year, an enquiry was made by the Hon'ble Members as to whether the department had filed any appeal on the issues which were decided by the CIT(A) in favour of respondent assessee. At that point of time, after verification of the assessment records of the respondent assessee, the Assessing Officer brought to the notice of the appellant that appeal remained to be filed before the ITAT as per authorisation dt.13.6.2007. 4. The factual position narrated hereunder which led to the lapse in filing the appeal before the tribunal on the part of the Assessing Officer may kindly be appreciated- (i) During the relevant period there was change of incumbents in the charge of Assessing Officer, ACIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad. Shri James Kurian who was holding the regular charge of ACIT, Cir.4 proceeded on leave w.e.f. 01.06.2007 and additional charge was handed over to Dr. Jayant Jhaveri, ACIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to file appeal as authorised, he filed appeal before the ITAT by moving an application for condonation of the delay for which the appellant accorded permission. 7. Accordingly, the present Assessing Officer filed appeal on 18.12.2012 along with an application seeking condonation of delay." 5. No counter affidavit is filed by the respondent disputing these factual averments. 6. From the record thus it emerges that all along the Revenue desired to file appeal against the respondent assessee for the present year also namely, the assessment year 20042005. Proper instructions were also accordingly issued. However, due to intervening factors and due to error of human agencies involved, such appeal was not filed. This came to the light of the department only when the tax appeal before the tribunal of the same assessee for another assessment year came up for hearing. Detailed inquiry was therefore, made and it was revealed that due to oversight the tax appeal for the assessment year 2004-2005 was not filed. The affidavit of Shri P.C. Mody, Commissioner of Income Tax clarifies the position and points out the reasons why such error took place. From such affidavit, we gather that during t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents is to treat the delayed appeals of the Government agencies more strictly and not to routinely condone such delay which is sought to be explained merely on administrative difficulties or mere shuffling of files from one table to another. In that context counsel for the respondent rightly drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Office of the Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. reported in 348 ITR 7, in which it was observed as under: "In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accordingly condoned, the order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the High Court for disposal on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. In Prabha v. Ram Parkash Kalra (1987 Supp SCC 339), this Court had held that the court should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The appeal was allowed, the delay was condoned and the matter was remitted for expeditious disposal in accordance with law. 14. In G. Ramegowda, Major v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (1988 (2) SCC 142), it was held that no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its counsel could be laid. The expression "sufficient cause" must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring the appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay. In litigations to which Government is a party, there is yet another aspect which, perhaps, cannot be ignored. If appeals brought by Government are lost for such defaults, no person is individuall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every days delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justiceoriented process. The court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. The Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells to examine the cases whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the courts or whether cases require adjustment and should authorise the officers to take a decision or give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision to file appeal needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The indivi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
