TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (1) TMI 412
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3933, 3936 and 3937 and 4054 of 2008. B. Damodar, instructed by Kanga and Co., for the respondent in Notice of Motion Nos. 4051 and 4056 of 2008. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by 1. SWATANTER KUMAR C. J.- By this order, we will dispose of the above referred 11 notices of motion taken out by the Commissioner of Income tax, Mumbai, for condonation of delay in filing Interest-tax Appeal No. 10 of 2007 and income-tax appeals being Income-tax Appeals (Lodging) Nos. 2807 of 2008, 9 of 2008, 3216 of 2008, 3215 of 2008, 3212 of 2008, 2913 of 2008, 3217 of 2008, 2880 of 2008, 2879 of 2008 and 2875 of 2008. In all these cases, the delay in filing the appeals is between 411 days to 883 days. 2. In Notices of Motion Nos. 3926 of 2008, 3928 of 2008, 3931 of 2008, 3932 of 2008, 3933 of 2008, 3936 of 2008 and 3937 of 2008, in support of the respective notices of motion, identical affidavits have been filed giving the alleged reasons for condonation of delay. Similarly, in Notices of Motion Nos. 4051 of 2008, 4054 of 2008 and 4056 of 2008, identical affidavits have been filed, of course they are somewhat different than the ones filed in the 7 cases referred to by us above. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n October 11, 2006 and then the file was sent to the pane counsel for drafting the memo of appeal, which, according to the Department, was received on August 14, 2008. Thereafter, some time was taken ii finalising the appeal and the appeal was filed on August 29, 2008, whereas the last date for filing the appeal was October 12, 2006. The application for condonation of delay was opposed by the non-applicants as the delay is each of these cases is 411, 687, 656 and 883 days. In our view, no explanation has been rendered in the affidavits which would constitute sufficient cause for condonation of such large delay in filing the appeals. 4. In the other three Notices of Motion Nos. 4051 of 2008, 4054 of 2008 and 4056 of 2008, where again identical affidavits in support of the notices of motion have been filed, the delay in filing these three appeals is 450 days. The affidavits filed by the Deputy Director of Income-tax again are vague, uncertain and provide no proper explanation for the delay caused. The order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was passed on December 19 2006 and January 18, 2007; the copies are stated to have been received by the Department on February 2, 2007 and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tice. It is expected of every litigant and particularly the litigants have large litigation who have their own legal Department and channels, to act within the period of limitation. It is only by way o exception and upon showing sufficient cause that appeals, if other wise permissible, could be entertained beyond the prescribed pc of limitation. It also be noticed that in the case of State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749, Supreme Court held that the expression 'sufficient cause' should receive a liberal construction so as to advance the purpose of justice particularly when there is no motive behind delay. This necessarily implies that parties must act bona fidely, expeditiously and with due care. A casual or a negligent litigant who has acted with irresponsible attitude, cannot claim the condonation of delay in law when the right has accrued to the other side….. 23. In performance of their functions, public officers or public servants have the duty to act judiciously fairly and expeditiously officer can hardly justify that a file would lie on his table for mc or days together and he would not act on the said file just because he claims....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rger responsibility and consciousness in the conduct of the affairs of the Revenue Department. Certain amount of leverage or relaxation for Departmental functions would be permissible, but this cannot be extended to the limits protecting negligence and irresponsibility simpliciter. For example, in Notice of Motion No. 2335 of 2008, the copy was received on December 6, 2006. The prescribed period of limitation was permitted to expire. There is nothing in the application to say what steps were taken before April 4, 2007, when the appeal was alleged to have been sent for drafting. There is no averment as to what steps were taken for getting the draft appeal prepared and filing of the same in court right from April 4, 2007, till February 27, 2008. Even when the appeal was ready in February, 2008, there is no explanation as to why it was filed on June 26, 2008, after a lapse of more than four months. Similarly, in Notice of Motion No. 2059 of 2008, the copy was received on June 23, 2004, and no steps whatsoever were taken between June 23, 2004, till September 20, 2004. Thereafter, various persons claimed to have acted in regard to various aspects of the case, like scrutiny, Assessing Of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e exhibited three different levels under the Act, i.e., order of the Assessing Officer order of the Commissioner of Appeals and then the order of the Tribunal. Recourse to special remedy under section 260A of the Income-tax Act which specifies the period of limitation, the appellants are expected to act with responsibility and vigilance. In all these cases the distinction in the case to be founded on the extent of the delay unexplained and inordinate delay and the negligence and casual attitude of the officers/officials dealing with the matter. Where all these three elements are collectively present and the delay is beyond t. period of 400 days, i.e., more than a year, there would be no justification with the court to divest the non-applicant of a right which has accrued to him in law and in fact because of the unreasonable conduct of the applicant. 26. From the copies of the orders of the Tribunal placed on record, it is obvious that the orders were pronounced in accordance with law much prior to the dates when the copies were received by the Department. In other words, the Department was fully aware of the fate of the case before the Tribunal and its responsibilities arising fro....