2023 (8) TMI 1118 - HC - Income Tax

Application to Excuse 498-Day Delay in Filing Appeal Rejected Due to Insufficient Justification Under Section 260A of Income Tax Act.

The court dismissed the application for condonation of a 498-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, citing a lack of ... Condonation of delay - delay of 498 days in filing the appeal - HELD THAT:- We are unable to fathom why the State despite having at its disposal an enormous paraphernalia is unable to act with due expedition. In such cases, plea of the State that it could not obtain copies or even certified copies in time sounds pathetically absurd and hence is unacceptable. In application under consideration, it also stated that if the delay is not condoned, an irreparable injury would be caused to the appellant/revenue appellant and that if the delay is condoned, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent assessee. The argument is fallacious insofar as it ignores the fundamental principle that if the appeal is not filed in time prescribed by law, a substantial right accrues in favour of the person in whose favour the impugned order was passed. So far as the argument of the so called injury that would be caused to the appellant/revenue, suffice it to record that it cannot be accepted as a ground to discard law of limitation. Also, in the case of Bherulal [2020 (10) TMI 1231 - SUPREME COURT] the apex court found the proposition preposterous that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to be given a goby. As observed by the apex court in the case of Bherulal (supra), the irony is that no action is taken against the officers who sit on files and do nothing under a presumption that the court would condone the delay in routine and it is time when the concerned officer responsible for such laxity bears the consequences. There is another aspect, which is quite vital. The legislature u/s 260A of the Act has already granted a comparatively much longer period of 120 days to the revenue to file appeals. That in itself should call for a rather stricter scrutiny of the matrix set up by the revenue to explain delays in filing its appeals. But in the present case, as mentioned above, appellant/revenue opted not even to set up a specific factual matrix, apparently under overconfidence that the applicant being a government body and the issue being qua exchequer, the delay in filing the appeal would surely be condoned. Despite anguish expressed by courts at all levels through various judicial pronouncements, no change in work attitude of officials of some of the government departments has taken place. Largely, behind such delays on the part of government agencies in initiating appropriate legal proceedings lies extreme laxity, negligence and dereliction of duties on the part of government officials. Even in this hi-tech “click of mouse” age some of the government officials are yet to come out of their love for “snail pace” style of working. Worst is when such delays are aimed at simply completing formalities so that the government appeals get dismissed on the grounds of limitation, to the designed benefit of the other party. Whatever be the reason, it is either the loss to the exchequer or abrogation of the valuable rights of the assessee litigating against the State. Such negligent or deliberate dormancy on the part of government officials cannot be countenanced. It is high time such government officials are taken to task and penalized to recompense the exchequer, though such exercise can be undertaken in some other appropriate lis. Time has come to take drastic measures qua lethargy caused litigation delays, lest the chaos in judicial functioning percolated further. Time has come when due diligence has to replace negligence which pervades some of the government agencies as in the present case, so that justice does not hang at the altar of dereliction, default, negligence and indifference. Before parting, we feel inclined to record an expectation that all the learned counsel who represent the revenue in this court would sensitize their officers regarding the view taken by the apex court on such issues in the case of Bherulal (supra). We are unable to find any cause, what to say of sufficient cause, explaining delay of 498 days in filing this appeal. Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.2. Explanation of 'sufficient cause' for delay.3. Treatment of government inefficiencies in legal proceedings.4. Legal consequences of delay in filing appeals.Summary:1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:The appellant/revenue sought condonation of a 498-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The application was treated under Section 260A(2A) of the Act. The court noted that the application lacked any circumstances explaining the delay, and the respondent/assessee opposed the application.2. Explanation of 'Sufficient Cause' for Delay:The court examined the legal position regarding 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It emphasized that while the term should be construed liberally to ensure disputes are decided on merits, it should not render the law of limitation ineffective. The court highlighted that a substantive right arises in favor of the decree holder when the limitation period expires.3. Treatment of Government Inefficiencies in Legal Proceedings:The court observed that the government often relies on outdated judicial pronouncements to justify delays, despite advancements in technology. The court stressed that government bodies must perform their duties with diligence and that condonation of delay should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The court cited several judgments, including Bherulal, emphasizing that the law of limitation binds everyone equally, including the government.4. Legal Consequences of Delay in Filing Appeals:The court found that the appellant/revenue failed to provide any specific circumstances explaining the delay. The application appeared to be a cyclostyled proforma with the number of days of delay filled in, reflecting a lack of seriousness. The court noted that the legislature had already granted a longer period of 120 days to the revenue to file appeals, warranting stricter scrutiny of the delay. The court expressed its dissatisfaction with the laxity and negligence of government officials, emphasizing the need for due diligence to replace negligence in government agencies.Conclusion:The court dismissed the delay condonation application, finding no sufficient cause for the 498-day delay. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed as time-barred. The court urged counsel representing the revenue to sensitize their officers regarding the judicial view on such issues.