Tribunal dismisses revenue appeals due to lengthy delay in challenging assessment annulment.

Income-tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Ujjain. Versus Hemraj Onkarji Mali.

Income-tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Ujjain. Versus Hemraj Onkarji Mali. - [2009] 311 ITR 416, ITD 106, 513, TTJ 108, 100, Issues:
Appeal against the annulment of assessment due to compensation amount timing.

Analysis:
The appeals by the revenue were filed late by 8 years, 7 months, and 10 days, leading to a request for condonation of delay. The department argued that the delay was due to the nature of government decision-making processes. The department cited various legal precedents to support their plea for condonation, emphasizing the need for substantial justice. However, the assessee challenged the department's reasoning, arguing that the delay was not justified, especially considering the significant duration of over 8 years. The assessee contended that the department's plea for condonation should be rejected, highlighting the lack of valid reasons for the delay.

The main issue revolved around the assessability of income received as compensation following the compulsory acquisition of land by the Ujjain Development Authority. The compensation, received in the financial year 1988-89 relevant to assessment year 1989-90, was brought under capital gain tax for that year. The CIT(A) later held that the compensation was not taxable in 1989-90 but in 1986-87, ignoring subsequent amendments in the law. The department did not appeal against this decision promptly, leading to a delayed challenge to the assessment. The delay was attributed to a conscious decision by a senior officer not to file appeals promptly.

The Tribunal deliberated on whether the delay in filing the appeals by the department was condonable. While acknowledging the statutory right to appeal, the Tribunal emphasized the need for fulfilling conditions for a vested right to appeal. The Tribunal cited legal provisions allowing for the admission of appeals after the prescribed period if sufficient cause is demonstrated. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of advancing substantial justice but noted that the party seeking condonation must show due diligence. In this case, the Tribunal found that the department's reasons for the delay were not sufficient or reasonable, especially given the conscious decision not to file appeals promptly. Consequently, the Tribunal refused to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of all appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal declined to admit the appeals for hearing, dismissing them due to the uncondonable delay in filing by the department.