TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1496
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have been filed within 120 days from the date of the receipt of the order and such period expired on 20.07.2019. The present appeal was filed on 04.01.2021. The department seeks to explain the delay of 535 days in the following manner. It is stated that on 26.03.2019 the appeal scrutiny report was called for from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) after sending two reminders, the report was submitted to the PCIT on 16.05.2019. On 15.07.2019, the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) [(DGIT) (INV)] approved the proposal for filing appeal and thereafter necessary concurrence was also obtained from the Commissioner of Income Tax [(TDS) (CIT, TDS)]. On 16.07.2019, the Income Tax Officer (Judicial) returned the judicial folder to the PCIT for filing the appeal. On the very next day, 17.07.2019, the judicial folder was sent to the Ministry of Law and Justice, Kolkata for filing the appeal. The Ministry nominated their junior standing counsel on 17.07.2019 which nomination was received by the counsel on 22.07.2019. The draft Memorandum of Appeal was made ready on 20.09.2019. The senior standing counsel appearing for the Income Tax department settled the Memorandum of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vit-in-opposition disputed the date on which the order was received by the PCIT i.e on 22.03.2019. It is further stated that the revenue has proceeded in a callous and negligent manner with mala fide intentions and the conduct of the department was wholly untenable and negligent. It is stated that the department has made bogus statement, no plausible explanation has been given, the averments are vague, devoid of merits, the department has made false and misleading statements with a view to camouflage and conceive the true identity of malice. Further it is stated that the department has not mentioned as to the procedure adopted by them in getting approval to file an appeal and the same is mala fide and devoid of substance. Further the dates which have been mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application namely with regard to the dates on which the folder was sent to the junior Central Government counsel of the Ministry of Law and Justice and the junior standing counsel for the department are stated to be wholly false, untenable and mala fide. Further it is stated that the delay has occurred due to the negligence of the department, their callous attitude ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....avit tendering apology was filed on behalf of the respondent assessee. On going through the affidavit, we are satisfied that the deponent who filed the affidavit on behalf of the respondent assessee has realized his mistake and taking note of the unconditional apology tendered therein, we do not wish to proceed further against the deponent or the assessee. 8. Thus, the question which falls for consideration is whether the delay of 535 days in filing the appeal is required to be condoned or not. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Post Master General and Others Versus Living Media India Limited and Another [(2012) 3 SCC 563] considered a case where the postal department sought for condoning the delay of 427 days in filing the special leave petitions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the decision in the case of Collector (LA) Versus Katiji [(1987) 2 SCC 107]. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to be benefit by lodging an appeal late; refusing to condone delay can result in an meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated as against this when delay is condoned the highe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....easonable limit is permissible (when appeal filed by the Government) having regard to impersonal bureaucratic set up involving red-tapism. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on a similar lines in the case of State of U.P. Versus Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309], National Insurance Company Versus Giga Ram [(2002) 10 SCC 176] and State of Nagaland Versus Lipok AO [(2005) 3 SCC 752] were also referred to. It was further held that the delay caused in filing the petition was the result of all the necessary and unavoidable office formalities and was bona fide and not deliberate or intentional and the petitioner therein was prevented by the sufficient cause from filing the petition within the period of limitation. Ultimately the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice. On facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that there was no proper explanation offered by the postal department for the delay and therefore declined to condone the delay. 10. In a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application to demonstrate as to how the folder/file moves from one authority to another. It is not clear as to why the Income Tax department is required to process the filing of the appeal through the Ministry of Law and Justice which is the already over-burdened with Government litigation of various departments. If appropriate steps can be taken to streamline the procedure by evolving a machineray by which there is direct interaction between the assessing officer and the standing counsel for the department for processing and filing the appeal, in the opinion of this Court the delay in filing the appeals by the Income Tax department would be substantially reduced. We take judicial notice of the fact that such procedure is adopted in the other states of the country. We leave this to the best wisdom of the Ministry of Law and Justice and the department of Income Tax so as to sought out the procedure and to ensure that appeals are promptly filed. 13. In the case on hand, the last date for filing the appeal within the period of limitation expired on 20.07.2019. The decision/scrutiny report for filing the appeal w....