M/S VIJAY SOLVEX LTD vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/144/2012HC RajasthanRJHC02014724201226 May 20162 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court found the appellant's explanation for the 61-day delay to be vague. Specifically, the judgment noted the lack of a precise date when the file was sent to the advocate for appeal preparation and the unexplained silence regarding the period after receiving the advocate's opinion in January 2011 (likely 2012). The court emphasized that while not every day's delay requires justification, an application for condonation cannot be based on such vague assertions that fail to adequately explain the delay. Consequently, as the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, the appeal itself was also dismissed as being barred by time. No specific issue regarding the merits of the ITAT order was decided.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Vijay Solvex Limited, filed an appeal before the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated October 14, 2011. The appeal was filed on April 27, 2012, over four years after the ITAT order. The appellant sought condonation of a 61-day delay in filing the appeal. They stated that a copy of the impugned order was received on October 20, 2011. The company's Board decided to seek an advocate's opinion in November 2011 (specific date not provided). The advocate's opinion was received in January 2011 (likely a typo in the judgment, should be 2012 given the appeal filing date). The appellant claimed the advocate was preoccupied, causing further delay in filing the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should condone the 61-day delay in filing the appeal against the ITAT's order dated October 14, 2011, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, considering the reasons provided by the appellant (assessee)? Assessee's Contention: The appellant argued that the delay was due to the time taken to obtain an advocate's opinion and the advocate's subsequent preoccupation in preparing the appeal. They relied on the principle that while each day's delay need not be justified, the application cannot be based on vague averments. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the condonation of delay. However, the court's reasoning implies that the revenue would have opposed the condonation based on the vagueness of the appellant's explanation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.144/2012 Vijay Solvex Limited Vs. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Ors. Date of Order: 26/05/2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. Bhandari HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. RANKA Mr. Amol Vyas & Mr. Anant Kasliwal, for appellant.

We have heard on the application u/Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. There is a delay of 61 days.

The appeal was preferred to challenge the order of Income Tax Appellant Authority (for short 'ITAT') dt.14.10.2011. The appeal was filed on 27.04.2012, thereby, it is old by more than four years by now. The application for condonation of delay has been filed. It is stated that a copy of the impugned order was received on 20.10.2011 itself. The Board of the company decided to send the file for opinion of the Advocate in the month of November, 2011. The date of November has not been specified. The opinion of the Advocate was then received in the month of January,2011. It is not specified as to why the matter was not pursued by the company to seek opinion of the Advocate at the earliest when they were knowing about the period of limitation to file appeal. As per the opinion, the appeal was to be filed. The company asked the Advocate to prepare the appeal but, due to his pre-occupation, appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation. We find the application for condonation of delay to 2 be quite vague. It is not specified as to when the file was sent to the Advocate for preparation of appeal. There is a total silence about the period after getting the opinion of the Advocate in the month of January, 2011. The application for condonation of delay is thus vague. It is not necessary that a party need to justify each days delay but application cannot be based on vague averments, which do not justify the delay. In view of the above, we are not inclined to accept the application for condonation of delay when it is based on vague averments. The application u/Sec.5 of the Limitation Act is accordingly dismissed so as the appeal. In view of dismissal of the application u/Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, the appeal is also dismissed being barred by time. (J.K. RANKA), J.

(M.N. Bhandari),J. S.Kumawat Certificate- All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed. S.Kumawat Jr. P.A

More judgments on Section 5

All 847 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →