TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') challenging the common impugned order dated 5th April 2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in I.T(SS).A.No.352/Del/1997 and I.T(SS).A.No.104/Del/1997 relating to the block period 1st April 1986 to 6th November 1996. 2. The background facts are that Elegant Travels Private Limited ('ETPL') was incorporated on 17th January 1987. It had three Directors of which one was Mr. Arvinder Singh, the Respondent in ITA No. 453/2012. It is stated that ETPL is engaged in the business of travel agents, tour operators and ticketing etc. and had the agency of Indian Airlines and Vayudoot. The ticketing business is stated to have been closed in 1990 consequent upon a change in the policy. 3. Search and seizure operations were carried out under Section 132 of the Act on Mr. Buta Singh, the father of Mr. Arvinder Singh, and Group. Notice was issued under Section 158BD of the Act requiring ETPL as well as Mr. Arvinder Singh to file their respective returns of income. Another similar notice was issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. After the Assessees filed their writte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay of 22 days. As far as the delay in re-filing was concerned, it was explained that on account of the resignation of the Standing Counsel of the Income Tax Department who had filed the matter in December 2010, the defects pointed out by the Registry could not be attended to. It was only when the appeal of ETPL against the subsequent order of the ITAT dated 16th December 2009 was filed, it was noticed that ITA No. 453/2012 was unattended and it was only thereafter that the objections were removed and the appeal was re-filed. 9. The explanation offered for the delay in filing ITA No. 464/2012, in which ETPL was the Respondent, requires to now be noticed. The explanation offered in CM No. 14085/2012 (in ITA No. 464/2012) is that pursuant to the order dated 5th April 2007 of the ITAT setting aside the assessment order, the AO issued a fresh notice under Section 143(2) of the Act and thereafter framed a fresh assessment on 31st December 2008. Against this assessment order, appeals were filed before the ITAT. By order dated 16th October 2009, the ITAT quashed the assessment on the ground that when in the first round the ITAT had set aside the assessment by its order dated 5th Apr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... October 2009) was listed for hearing on 28th January 2011 an order was passed by the Court noting the contention of the counsel for the Revenue that there was no impediment for the AO to have passed a fresh assessment order. On that basis, notice was issued in the said appeal. It was stated in the additional affidavit in para 12 as under: 12.During the course of proceedings in the aforementioned case, it was pointed out by the Counsel for the Revenue to the Department on 28.01.2011,that the Department is under a mistaken belief that ITAT vide order dated 05.04.2007 has remanded the matter to the AO to reframe the assessment after allowing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. This mistaken belief was particularly for the reason that it was the contention of the Assessee before the ITAT that Assessing officer while passing AO violated the principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The said mistaken belief is also reflected in the CSR recorded by the Department dated 08.02.2010. Copy of the CSR dated 08.02.2010 is attached herewith as ANNEXURE C. 14. It was further stated in para 13 that on the basis of the aforeme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s far as ITA No. 464 of 2012 is concerned, the actual date of filing was 14th August 2012 and the delay works out to 5 years, 1 month and 19 days, i.e. 1876 days. 18. That the Revenue itself is confused about the exact days of delay is apparent from the additional affidavit filed by it in ITA No. 464/2012 where it has computed the delay in filing the said appeal as 565 days. 19. The purpose of the Court passing the order dated 31st July 2014 requiring a proper affidavit to be filed by the Revenue was to give it one more opportunity of giving a satisfactory explanation for the extraordinary delay in filing the appeals. Unfortunately, even by way of the additional affidavit dated 14th September 2014, the Revenue has been unable to offer any convincing explanation. 20. It was urged by Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue, that it was only on account of confusion in the Department on whether the impugned order dated 5th April 2007 of the ITAT could be challenged that there was an extraordinary delay in filing the appeals. As already noticed from the additional affidavit filed by the Revenue on 22nd September 2014, the Department was informed by coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. 28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. 29. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
