2018 (12) TMI 812 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal Dismissed for Delay: Importance of Condonation Reasons

E-Governance Society Department Of FCS, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla Versus The CIT (Exemptions). Chandigarh

E-Governance Society Department Of FCS, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla Versus The CIT (Exemptions). Chandigarh - TMI Issues:1. Appeal against rejection of application u/s 10(23C)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Appeal prima facie barred by limitation of 226 days.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of the assessee's application seeking approval u/s 10(23C)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeal was found to be delayed by 226 days, prompting a show cause notice from the Registry. The appellant society cited negligence in filing the appeal, stating that they were under the impression it had been filed when the order was received. However, the reasons provided were deemed vague and insufficient, with no specific details about when the order was mailed to the counsel. The Tribunal noted that the reasons for delay were general and lacked specificity, and no application for condonation of delay was submitted initially. The Tribunal concluded that the delay was due to gross negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee, and the reasons presented did not constitute a reasonable cause for condonation of delay.2. Referring to the decision in the case of Postmaster General vs. Living Media India Ltd, the Tribunal highlighted that red tapism within the department, slow movement of files, and bureaucratic methodology were not acceptable as 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay. The Tribunal emphasized that the law of limitation binds everyone, including the Government, and that condonation of delay should not be an anticipated benefit for government departments. Citing the case of Amalendu Kumar Bera v. State of West Bengal, the Tribunal reiterated that delay in filing appeals cannot be mechanically considered, especially in cases of serious laches and negligence. Based on these legal principles, the Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to the delay of 226 days, emphasizing the need for valid and specific reasons for condonation of delay in legal proceedings. The decision was based on established legal principles regarding the condonation of delay, highlighting the importance of diligence and commitment in fulfilling legal obligations, even for government bodies and instrumentalities.