Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.441/2011 Sr. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar & Anr. Date of Order: 26/05/2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. Bhandari HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. RANKA Mr. P.K. Kasliwal, for appellant. We have heard on the application u/Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. There is a delay of 234 days in filing of appeal. The application u/Sec.5 of the Limitation Act has been filed to justify the delay. Para 1, 2 & 3 of the application are quoted hereunder for ready reference to show as to what justification for delay has been given.:- “1. That impugned order was passed on 20.06.2008 and same was received by appellant company on 29.07.2008. 2. That the appellant company after receiving the order, sought approval for filing of the appeal before the Hon'ble High Court from High Power Committee of dispute (C.O.D.) which was received recently on 26.05.2002. 3. That thereafter-appellant contacted the counsel for preparation of the appeal and same was prepared and send for signatures to the office at Alwar.” The impugned order was passed on 20.06.2008 and a copy of which was received by the company on 29.07.2008. The period spent for obtaining copy is not to be counted. The permission to file appeal was received from High Power Committee on 26.05.2009, however, no justification of delay has been given as to why the permission was not sought and given by the High Power Committee immediately or within the period of limitation. If there exist lapse in grant of permission
2 or delay therein, it cannot be to the benefit of the appellant. We further find that even permission for filing the appeal was given on 26.05.2009 but the appeal was filed on 17.07.2009 i.e. after lapse of more than 50 days and proper explanation of delay exist. We do not find any justification of delay even after the permission. It is submitted that after the permission, it took time to prepare the appeal and to send it for signatures. It seems that the appellant moved the file at their leisure and not in consonance to the provisions of law. They were knowing about the limitation in filing of the appeal but did not adhere to the schedule required for it. The application does not explain the delay though it may not be for each day but condonation can not be sought without proper explanation. In view of the above, the application u/Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the application u/Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, the appeal is also dismissed being barred by limitation. (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