2015 (2) TMI 503 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal Dismissed Due to Delay in Filing Against Income Tax Commissioner Decision

The Court upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to dismiss the appeal due to a delay of 754 days in filing the appeal against the ... Condonation of delay - Held that:- Appellant in the present case has been lackadaisical in their approach and in a nonchalant manner they have tried to seek condonation of delay. The Supreme Court in the decision in Esha Bhattacharjee V. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur, Nafar Academy and others [2015 (1) TMI 1053 - SUPREME COURT] has deprecated the practice of showing leniency in unwarranted fact situation. The parameters laid down by the Supreme Court as to when the delay should not be condoned get squarely attracted to the facts of the present case and therefore, we find no reason to condone the delay. The Tribunal was correct in dismissing the appeal on that score. - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Delay in filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.2. Justification for not condoning the delay in filing the appeal.3. Interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay in legal proceedings.Analysis:Issue 1:The appellant challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which declined to condone the delay of 754 days in filing the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 27.12.2010. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing unsatisfactory explanation for the delay. The appellant, a partnership firm, contended that the delay was due to the Managing Partner's medical complications. The Tribunal held that the reasons provided were insufficient, considering the firm had multiple partners who could have filed the appeal on time.Issue 2:The Court analyzed the reasons for the delay and the conduct of the appellant. Despite claims of continuing medical complications of the Managing Partner, the Court found that the treatment periods were intermittent and short. The Court noted that even if the Managing Partner was indisposed, other partners or the son of the Managing Partner could have filed the appeal in a timely manner. The Court concluded that the appellant's negligence and procrastination justified the Tribunal's decision not to condone the delay.Issue 3:The Court delved into the legal principles governing the condonation of delay, citing a previous decision emphasizing a liberal approach while considering such applications. The Court highlighted the need for substantial justice, non-pedantic interpretation of 'sufficient cause,' and vigilance against lack of bona fides. The Court stressed that a party's conduct and negligence are crucial factors in deciding on condonation of delay. Applying these principles to the present case, the Court found the appellant's approach lackadaisical and nonchalant, aligning with the Supreme Court's stance against leniency in unwarranted situations. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal due to the unjustified delay.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Tax Case (Appeal) as no substantial question of law arose from the issues presented.