High Court Of Calcutta
CIT vs. Tezpore Tea Co. Ltd.
Section 260A, Limitation Act, 1963, s. 5
D.K. Seth & Maharaj Sinha, JJ.
GA No. 1732 of 2004 & IT Appeal No. 291 of 2004
12th September, 2005
Counsel Appeared
Ranjan Sinha, for the Appellant : R.N. Bajoria, J.P. Khaitan & C.M. Ghorawat, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
By the court :
This is an application under s. 5 of the Limitation Act. The delay has been sought to be explained in the manner stated in para 6 of the application. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the delay has been sufficiently explained and he had taken us through the statements made in paras 6, 7 and 8 and various paragraphs in the application and prayed that the delay be condoned.
2. Mr. Bajoria, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, has pointed out that there is delay of about 458 days and that the delay has not been properly explained and the statements made in para 6 do not seem to be a sufficient explanation for condoning the delay. He also pointed out that an officer of the rank of an Inspector in the office of the CIT has affirmed the affidavit. No officer of responsible rank has taken the responsibility of the statements made in the application. Mr. Bajoria had drawn our attention to this case and submits that almost in every case there is an application for condonation of delay. The delays range sometime upto 400/500 days or more. He also pointed out that the manner in which the applications are being filed, appears to have been written in a format filling up the dates and it also discloses the movement of files from one Department to the other.
Mr. Bajoria also points out that for this purpose the cost is borne out of the public exchequer. For no apparent reasons the things have been taken for granted and no one takes the responsibility. He also points out that this delays the process and ultimately the blame is thrown at the door of the Courts. He also criticises the policy of taking away the jurisdiction of the High Court and introducing Bills for creating Tribunals for dealing with income-tax matters on the ground that the delays in the High Court in disposing of income-tax matters being the principal reason is wholly a wrong conception. It is the Department itself which is responsible for the delay not the Courts. The legislature had amended the law from time-to-time in order to cut short the period and expedite the process and avoid delay. But such attempt of the legislature has not been reflected in the attitude of the Department who themselves are responsible for the delay. This also cuts in two ways. Apart from the appeal being decided directly, the application for condonation of delay consumes a considerable time and also prevents the Court from dealing with appeals straightaway and keeps the Court busy with applications for condonation of delay, which can easily be avoided by the Department. According to him, at the one hand the Department itself is responsible for the delay and committing the delay and then throwing the blame on the Courts for the delay being oblivious of the fact that the Department itself was responsible for the delay and is unnecessarily keeping the Court busy with applications for condonation of delay.
3. There might be some substance in the submission of Mr. Bajoria. For obvious reasons, we do not want to elaborate. But the fact remains that the way in which the delays are being explained is not sufficient explanation and despite our repeated reminders to the learned advocates appearing for the Department, the situation has not shown any improvement and no one has pointed out that any steps have been taken for pulling up any of the officers responsible for the delay.
4. Now, coming to the present case, the order was passed by the learned Tribunal on 23rd July, 2002, and the copy thereof was received by the Department on 7th Oct., 2002, whereafter records were requisitioned on 10th Oct., 2002. It took almost 42 days to send the file to the Ministry of Law for opinion and the Ministry of Law sent its opinion after 47 days. Then on 14th Jan., 2003, the file was sent to the Dy. CIT (Inv.), who returned the same on 3rd Feb., 2003, and the file was received by the advocate for drafting the appeal on 28th March, 2003, namely, almost after two months. The draft was sent on 30th April, 2003 to the Ministry of Law and after almost two months, that is, on 20th June, 2003, the file along with the draft was received from the office of the Ministry of Law and was engrossed on 3rd July, 2003. Thereafter, six months had passed for the Ministry of Law to wake up to inform the Department that the papers submitted were illegible and to request for legible copies and the Department took one month to send legible copies when the period for filing the appeal had already expired and it took almost two months to scrutinise the papers and arrange the stamp paper by the Department, namely, on 4th May, 2004, for filing the appeal on 6th May, 2004. This has been sought to be explained in the form of a list of dates, a very slipshod method and no responsible officer appears to have taken the responsibility as to why this delay occurring in its own Department and the affidavit has been affirmed by an Inspector in such a serious case. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the application for condonation of delay. The application is thus dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
5. In these circumstances, we feel that a copy of this order be placed before the Ministry of Finance, Union of India, the Ministry of Law, Government of India, the Chairman, CBDT and the Chief CIT-I, Calcutta, for information so as to introduce some method of system to eliminate the delay in the Department itself and introduce a workable system for filing the appeal within time.
[Citation : 279 ITR 339]
