2019 (11) TMI 940 - SC - Income Tax

Supreme Court sets aside High Court order, emphasizes considering delay reasons

SENIOR BHOSALE ESTATE (HUF) Versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's order and remanding the matter back to the High Court for consideration of the ... Condonation of delay - delay of 1754 days - HELD THAT:- The appellant(s) had asserted that they had no knowledge about passing of order dated 29.12.2003, until they were confronted with the auction notices in June 2008 issued by the competent authority. Soon thereafter, the appellant(s) filed appeal(s) accompanied by the subject application(s) on 19.07.2008. Notably, the respondent(s) did not expressly refute the stand taken by the appellant(s) - that they had no knowledge about passing of order dated 29.12.2003 until June, 2008. Unless that fact was to be refuted, the question of disbelieving the stand taken by the appellant(s) on affidavit, cannot arise and for which reason, the High Court should have shown indulgence to the appellant(s) by condoning the delay in filing the concerned appeal(s). This aspect has been glossed over by the High Court. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed. We set aside the impugned order of the High Court and relegate the parties before the High Court, by allowing the civil application(s) filed by the appellant(s) for condonation of delay in filing the concerned appeal. Issues:Appeal against order dismissing condonation of delay in filing appeals due to lack of knowledge about the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Authority.Analysis:The Supreme Court heard the appeals challenging the High Court's order dated 13.02.2009, which dismissed the appellant(s)' civil applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals against the order dated 29.12.2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Authority. The appellant(s) claimed they were unaware of the order until receiving auction notices in June 2008. The respondent(s) did not dispute this claim. The Court noted that since the respondent(s) did not challenge the appellant(s)' assertion of lack of knowledge about the order until June 2008, the High Court should have considered this fact and allowed condonation of the delay. The High Court's failure to address this crucial point led the Supreme Court to allow the appeals, setting aside the High Court's order and remanding the matter back to the High Court for consideration of the condonation of delay applications.The Supreme Court held that the High Court overlooked the crucial fact that the appellant(s) were unaware of the order until June 2008, as not contested by the respondent(s). Therefore, the Court allowed the appeals, directing the restoration of the concerned appeals to the High Court for further proceedings in accordance with the law. The pending applications were disposed of as a consequence of this decision. The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering the circumstances leading to the delay in filing appeals and the need for courts to show indulgence when genuine reasons, such as lack of knowledge about the order, are presented by the appellant(s).