High Court Of Allahabad
Ganga Sahai Ram Swarup & Anr. vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Ors.
Section 249(3)
R.K. Agrawal & K.N. Ojha, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 36 of 2004
21st July, 2004
Counsel Appeared : Ravi Agrawal, for the Appellants : Shambhu Chopra, for the Respondents
JUDGMENT
By the court :
Heard Shri Ravi Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants, and Shri Shambhu Chopra, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. The appeal had been admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law : “Whether non- condonation of delay by the CIT(A) was arbitrary and against the settled principles ?”
3. From the order of the appellate authority, it appears that an assessment was framed against the appellants under s. 144/245 by the ITO, Ward No. 2, Hapur, vide order dt. 12th Sept., 2000. The appeal under s. 246 of the IT Act, 1961, is to be preferred within 30 days of the date of the order which in the present case was to be filed up to 15th Oct., 2000. The appeal was actually filed on 27th Oct., 2000, i.e., after a delay of 12 days. The appellants had filed an application under s. 5 of the Limitation Act supported by an affidavit for condonation of delay. The ground taken was that the appellants had handed over the papers to its counsel, Shri R.K. Sachdeva, at Meerut, however, the appeal was not prepared and filed within the time. The CIT(A) vide order dt. 13th Dec., 2000, declined to condone the delay and consequently dismissed the appeal. The challenge of the order passed by the CIT(A) remained unsuccessful before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was a short delay of only 12 days in filing the appeal and the appellants were not going to gain anything by delaying the filing of the appeal. He further submitted that the appellants were bona fide pursuing their remedy and in fact had handed over the papers to their counsel, Shri Sachdeva, who for some reasons had not prepared and filed the appeal within time and, therefore, a liberal view ought to have been taken by the authorities and the delay should have been condoned.
4. It is not in dispute that there was only a delay of 12 days in filing the appeal. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 62 CTR (SC) 23 : (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) : AIR 1987 SC 1353, a liberal view ought to have been taken by the authority as the delay was only of a very short period and the appellants were not going to gain anything from it.
5. In this view of the matter, the orders passed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal are set aside. The CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The matter is remanded to the CIT (A) to pass appropriate orders on the application for condonation of delay in the light of the observations made above and to decide the appeal on the merits in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months. The appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
[Citation : 271 ITR 512]
