Appeal dismissed due to significant delay; court rejects reliance on legal advice

The High Court of Calcutta dismissed an appeal against an Income-tax Appellate Tribunal decision due to a significant delay of 1517 days. The petitioner's claim of relying on legal advice to not appeal initially was rejected, as the court found the petitioner consciously chose not to appeal within the prescribed period. The court refused to admit the appeal, emphasizing the lack of valid reasons for the prolonged delay. The court cited a Supreme Court judgment and dismissed the application for condonation of delay, resulting in the appeal's dismissal.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Legal advice, Prescribed period of limitation, Conversion of profit/gain, Capital Gain to Business Income, Tax implication, Conscious choice of not appealing, Challenge to order, Prevention from presenting appeal, Opposing condonation of delay, Citation of relevant case law.

The judgment by the High Court of Calcutta involved an appeal against a decision by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Kolkata, with an application for condonation of a significant delay of 1517 days. The petitioner claimed that the delay was due to advice received from their advocate, who deemed the tax implication of approximately Rs. 89,000 not worth appealing. The court noted that the petitioner consciously chose not to appeal within the prescribed period, and now seeking to challenge the order after an extensive delay is not permissible merely based on changed advice. The court emphasized that the petitioner was not prevented from filing within the limitation period but made a deliberate decision not to challenge the order initially. Thus, the court declined to admit the appeal due to the prolonged delay.

The learned advocate representing the revenue vehemently opposed the plea for condonation of delay, citing a judgment from the Supreme Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media India Ltd. reported in AIR 2012 SC 1506. After considering the arguments from both parties, the court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, subsequently leading to the dismissal of the appeal itself. The court's decision was based on the petitioner's conscious choice not to appeal within the prescribed period and the lack of valid reasons for the significant delay in challenging the order.

---