AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 24
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ited ('ETPL') was incorporated on 17th January 1987. It had three Directors of which one was Mr. Arvinder Singh, the Respondent in ITA No. 453/2012. It is stated that ETPL is engaged in the business of travel agents, tour operators and ticketing etc. and had the agency of Indian Airlines and Vayudoot. The ticketing business is stated to have been closed in 1990 consequent upon a change in the policy. 3. Search and seizure operations were carried out under Section 132 of the Act on Mr. Buta Singh, the father of Mr. Arvinder Singh, and Group. Notice was issued under Section 158BD of the Act requiring ETPL as well as Mr. Arvinder Singh to file their respective returns of income. Another similar notice was issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. After the Assessees filed their written submissions, fresh notices were issued to them under Section 143(2) of the Act. 4. As far as Mr. Arvinder Singh was concerned, the Assessing Officer ('AO') completed the assessment under Section 158BC read with Section 113 of the Act on 28th November 1997 and computed the undisclosed income as Rs. 1,33,08,737. Aggrieved by the above order, Mr. Arvinder Singh filed an appeal before the IT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 453/2012 was unattended and it was only thereafter that the objections were removed and the appeal was re-filed. 9. The explanation offered for the delay in filing ITA No. 464/2012, in which ETPL was the Respondent, requires to now be noticed. The explanation offered in CM No. 14085/2012 (in ITA No. 464/2012) is that pursuant to the order dated 5th April 2007 of the ITAT setting aside the assessment order, the AO issued a fresh notice under Section 143(2) of the Act and thereafter framed a fresh assessment on 31st December 2008. Against this assessment order, appeals were filed before the ITAT. By order dated 16th October 2009, the ITAT quashed the assessment on the ground that when in the first round the ITAT had set aside the assessment by its order dated 5th April 2007, no directions had been given to the AO to pass a fresh order. The Revenue appealed against the said order dated 16th October 2009 of the ITAT to this Court by way of ITA No. 2018/2010. It is stated that when ITA No. 2018/2010 was listed before the Court some time in 2010, the Revenue sought leave to file an appeal against the ITAT's first order dated 5th April 2007. Thereafter, the Standing counsel for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Counsel for the Revenue to the Department on 28.01.2011,that the Department is under a mistaken belief that ITAT vide order dated 05.04.2007 has remanded the matter to the AO to reframe the assessment after allowing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. This mistaken belief was particularly for the reason that it was the contention of the Assessee before the ITAT that Assessing officer while passing AO violated the principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The said mistaken belief is also reflected in the CSR recorded by the Department dated 08.02.2010. Copy of the CSR dated 08.02.2010 is attached herewith as ANNEXURE C." 14. It was further stated in para 13 that "on the basis of the aforementioned advise of the Counsel for the Revenue, the case file along with complete record was handed over to the counsel on 10.08.2012 and appeal before the Hon'ble High Court was filed On 14.08.2012." 15. Nowhere in the additional affidavit is any explanation offered for the extraordinary delay between 28th January 2011, when counsel for the Revenue is supposed to have advised the Department that an appeal should be filed agai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly 2014 requiring a proper affidavit to be filed by the Revenue was to give it one more opportunity of giving a satisfactory explanation for the extraordinary delay in filing the appeals. Unfortunately, even by way of the additional affidavit dated 14th September 2014, the Revenue has been unable to offer any convincing explanation. 20. It was urged by Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue, that it was only on account of confusion in the Department on whether the impugned order dated 5th April 2007 of the ITAT could be challenged that there was an extraordinary delay in filing the appeals. As already noticed from the additional affidavit filed by the Revenue on 22nd September 2014, the Department was informed by counsel way back on 28th January 2011 that it ought to file appeal against the ITAT's order dated 5th April 2007. Therefore after 28th January 2011, the Department could not claim to be still under any confusion as to the course of action it was expected to take. It is plain that it did not take any urgent action as far as filing ITA No. 464/2012 was concerned till 14th August 2012. 21. As far as ITA No. 453/2012 is concerned although it was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eral concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. 30. Consid....