High Court Of Delhi
Surinder Kumar Boveja vs. Commissioner Of Wealth Tax
Sections 253(5), WT 26(3),
T.S. Thakur & Shiv Narayan Dhingra, JJ.
WT Appeal No. 2 of 2006 & CM No. 4470 of 2006
2nd May, 2006
Counsel Appeared
Sandeep Khurana, for the Appellant : R.D. Jolly with Ajay Jha, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J. :
The assessee in this case was assessed to wealth-tax by the WTO. The assessee was holder of a ticket of Delhi Stock Exchange. The WTO valued the tickets at Rs. 25 lakhs for the year 1991-92 and Rs. 40 lakhs for the year 1992-93. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and vide an order dt. 28th March, 2000, the appeal was partly allowed. WTO was directed to adopt valuation of Rs. 15 lakhs for the asst. yr. 1991-92 and Rs. 20 lakhs for the asst. yr. 1992-93. The assessee felt contented with the relief granted and did not prefer an appeal against the order of the CIT(A). Revenue, however, preferred an appeal against the order before the Tribunal and the appeal was disposed of vide order dt. 23rd Sept., 2004. The Tribunal while rejecting the appeal of the Revenue observed that the order of CIT(A) regarding valuation of the ticket was not in accordance with law. The Tribunal was of the opinion that value of the ticket could not be more than the amount for which ticket was purchased as the ticket was non-transferable initially. Since the assessee had not preferred an appeal against the order, the order of CWT(A) regarding valuation of ticket was upheld. The appeal of Revenue was dismissed.
2. After the order of Tribunal containing above observation, the assessee/appellant preferred appeals before the Tribunal against the orders of the CWT(A) dt. 28th March, 2000 and 8th May, 2003. Out of the said two appeals, one was delayed by four years and 245 days and other was delayed by one year and 154 days. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals without going into merits of the case on ground of limitation holding that the decision of the CWT(A) has become final and it would be against the spirit of order of the Tribunal to grant relief to the assessee. It was observed that proceedings before the Tribunal were continuation of the assessment proceedings and the Tribunal merely decides dispute between the parties. Even if interpretation of law is involved, it cannot be said that the Tribunal lays down the law. So it would not be correct to say that the tax liability with which the assessee got burdened was not in accordance with law. The Tribunal relied upon the judgment reported as Baroda Rayon Corp. Ltd. vs. CST (1992) 87 STC 266 (Guj). In this judgment, Gujarat High Court has held that : “In our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly pointed out that when a Tribunal decides any question and interprets a provision of law, while doing so, it cannot be said to be laying down any law for the State or settling the law for the State. It is no doubt true, as contended by the learned advocate for the applicant, that whatever Tribunal decides is binding on the subordinate authorities including the Commr., but that is because the Tribunal is a superior authority in the hierarchy of administration. Merely for that reason, the decision of the Tribunal cannot be said to have the effect of deciding or settling law for the State. In our opinion, the Tribunal, was therefore, right in holding that the assessee had failed to make out sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal to the Tribunal within the prescribed time.”
The counsel for appellant has argued that in view of the observation made by Tribunal while dismissing the appeal of Revenue, the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned. It was submitted that appellant did not prefer appeal against the order initially as he was not aware of the legal position. After the orders of Tribunal he became aware of the legal position and therefore, the Tribunal should have condoned the delay.
In order to get condonation of delay in filing of an appeal, a party has to show sufficient cause. Sufficient cause means a cause beyond the control of the party e.g., a mistake made in good faith in respect of exercise of due care and attention. But where there is want of due care and attention or want of due diligence or sufficient cause the delay cannot be condoned. The appellant was satisfied with the relief granted by CWT(A). After being satisfied with the relief granted by CWT(A), he did not prefer an appeal against the order. However, the IT Department preferred the appeal against the order of CWT(A) before the Tribunal. Even during the arguments before the Tribunal, appellant supported the order of CWT(A) and stated that the order be not reversed. Appellant chose to prefer an appeal against the order of CWT(A) only after the order of the Tribunal making some observation in his favour came. We consider that a party who had been content with the order and due to that reason has not preferred an appeal, cannot later on, on seeing some observation in a judgment or a finding about the law cannot plead that the delay be condoned of the entire period for which the party had felt contented and not preferred an appeal. The appellant did not prefer an appeal against the order of CWT(A) for about five year in one case and for about one and half year in another case. Ignorance of law, appellant’s neglect or failure to seek legal advice is not sufficient ground for condonation of delay. Ignorance of law is no excuse and Court cannot consider ignorance of law or mistake of law as sufficient cause for condonation of delay. If condonation is allowed on such ground, then there would be no end to the litigation and a party can prefer an appeal against an order at any point of time after finding some observation in a judgment subsequently delivered by a higher forum.
We, therefore, consider that the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation. We find no force in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
[Citation : 287 ITR 52]
