PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-09,NEW DELHI vs. USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE JAY ENGINEERING WORKS LTD.)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/326/2017HC DelhiDLHC01190945201701 May 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found the reasons for the delay to be unsatisfactory and not a bona fide effort. It emphasized that condonation of delay is an exception and government departments have a special obligation to perform duties diligently.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, sought to file an appeal with a delay of 190 days. The reasons provided for the delay included the Assessing Officer being busy with other assessments and departmental procedures.

What were the issues?

Whether the explanation provided for a significant delay in filing an appeal by a government department is satisfactory for condonation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +

ITA 326/2017

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-09,NEW DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Arun Khatri, Junior Standing Counsel

versus

USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE JAY ENGINEERING WORKS LTD.)

..... Respondent Through: Mr. V.P. Gupta & Mr. Arunav Kumar, Advocates

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

O R D E R %

01.05.2017

CM No.16419/2017 1. There is a delay of 190 days in filing the appeal. The explanation offered for the delay is given in paras 3, 4 and 5 of the explanation, which read as under: “3. That the said delay in fining the appeal has arisen in bona fide circumstances and for no fault or omission or negligence on the part of the Applicant/ Appellant herein and earnest efforts had been made by the Applicant /Appellant to expedite the process at various stages of finalizing the accompanying application, within the earliest possible time.

4.

That the appeal has been filed on the basis of records maintained in the office of concerned Assessing Officer. The appeal has to be processed through official channel/hierarchy

and the appeal has been filed by the Appellant as he is authorized to file appeal under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

5.

That the Assessing Officer was busy in several other time bearing assessments and was involved in scrutiny assessment works. Further, this office has also received other CIT (Appeals) and ITAT, High Court order and same was required to be seen with regard to taking decision for filing further appeal along with this appeal. Beside this, several other compliances have to be fulfilled by the Assessing Officer, which has caused an inadvertent delay. Also, there had been frequent transfer and posting at the level of AO which caused undue delay in filing this appeal.”

2.

The Supreme Court has in State of U.P. v. Amar Nath Yadav (2014) 2 SCC 422 reiterated its earlier decision in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited (2012) 3 SCC 563 where it was observed as under: “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 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 the Government Departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.”

3.

The reasons given in the present application are wholly unsatisfactory. The mere fact that the Assessing Officer was busy in other time bearing assessments can hardly be an excuse, particularly given the fact that under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the time period for filing of an appeal is 120 days. No other statute prescribes the time period of over three

months. Moreover, there is no explanation for every day‟s delay. The delay of 190 days cannot be said to be routine.

4.

With there being no satisfactory explanation, the application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J MAY 01, 2017 tp

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →