Bombay High Court dismisses appeals due to delay; insufficient reasons and evidence provided. The Bombay High Court declined to condone a 484-day delay in filing five appeals from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order for various assessment ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Bombay High Court dismisses appeals due to delay; insufficient reasons and evidence provided.
The Bombay High Court declined to condone a 484-day delay in filing five appeals from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order for various assessment years. The Court found the reasons provided for the delay lacking, including insufficient details and evidence supporting the former CFO's understanding. Despite the applicant's claim of oversight, the Court noted the delay in filing the appeals even after the memo was prepared. Consequently, all five notices of motion were dismissed without any order as to costs.
Issues: Delay in filing appeals from the Common Order dated 20th February, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Years 2003-04, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10.
Analysis: 1. The applicant sought condonation of a 484-day delay in filing five appeals to the Bombay High Court from the Tribunal's order. The impugned order was received on 1st May, 2015, with the last filing date being 29th August, 2015.
2. The reason for the delay in filing the appeals was claimed to be identical for all five appeals due to the identical fact situation.
3. The affidavit stated that the delay was due to the former CFO's impression that since the disputed amount was deposited under protest, there was no urgency in filing the appeal. The present CFO discovered the oversight in June 2016, leading to the filing of appeals in September 2016.
4. The Court found the reasons provided in the affidavit to be lacking. It noted the absence of details about the Advocate who prepared the draft memo and the lack of evidence supporting the former CFO's understanding. The Court also questioned the delay in filing the appeal despite the memo being prepared in June 2015.
5. The Court highlighted the lack of explanation for the delay of over three months from the discovery that appeals were pending. It observed that the applicant seemed to file the appeals upon reviewing its earlier decision to accept the Tribunal's order.
6. Ultimately, the Court declined to condone the 484-day delay in filing the appeals, leading to the dismissal of all five notices of motion without any order as to costs.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
