E-Governance Society Department of FCS, Shimla V. CIT(E), Chandigarh

ITA 1166/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1278 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2018
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1166/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16 E-GOVERNANCE SOCIETY DEPARTMENT VS. THE CIT (EXEMP TIONS). OF FCS, HIMACHAL PRADESH, CHANDIGARH BLOCK NO. 42 SHIMLA PAN NO. AAAAE8085G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. ATUL GOYAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SH.MANOJ MISHRA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 19.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.09. 2018 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.09.3026 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(E)] REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE SEEKING A PPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(IV) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT ' THE ACT'). 2. THE APPEAL PRIMA FACIE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION O F 226 DAYS. THE REGISTRY, THEREFORE, ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE D ATED 21.8.2017 AS TO WHY THE APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS TIME BARRED IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPLICATION DATED 12.9.2017, THE CONTENTS OF WHICH READS AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 1166/CHD/2017- E-GOVERNANCE SOCIETY, DEPTT.OF FCS, H.P., SHIMLA 2 SIR, THE APPEAL IN THE CASE IS DELAYED BY 226 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE IS A STATE GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENTALITY FUNCTIONING UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND HIMACHAL PRADESH. THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY MADE AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE CIT(E) FOR NON- APPEARANCE OF THE COUNSEL. THE ORDER WAS RECEIVED B Y OUR SOCIETY ON 11.10.2016 AND MAILED TO THE COUNSEL IN THE CASE. WE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT HAD BEEN FILED IN TH E CASE. BUT SUBSEQUENTLY ON RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND FROM THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DURING THE MONTH OF JULY 2017, WE REALIZED THAT NO APPEAL HAD BEEN FILED IN THE CASE AND ARRANGED TO FILE THE APP EAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE BENCH. THE AFFIDAVIT DETAILING THE AFOREMENTIONED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES MAY KINDLY BE PLACED BEFORE THE HON'BLE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR CONDONATION OF THE DELAY IN SUBMISSION OF THE APPEAL. 3. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE CONTENTS OF THE APPLICATI ON REVEALS THAT THE APPELLANT SOCIETY HAS BEEN NEGLIGENT IN FI LING THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. REASONS FOR DELAY ARE GENERA L AND VAGUE AND SIMPLY IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT WHEN THE ORDER OF TH E CIT (E) WAS RECEIVED, THE SAME WAS MAILED TO THE COUNSEL. HOWEV ER, WHO WAS THE COUNSEL AND WHEN DID THE ORDER WAS MAILED TO TH E COUNSEL HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED. ALL THE REASONS ARE VAGUE AND GENERAL REASONS. EVEN THERE WAS NO APPLICATION MOVED FOR C ONDONATION OF DELAY ALONG WITH THE APPEAL. THE PRESENT APPLICATIO N FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN MOVED ONLY AFTER THE REGISTRY SHOW CAUSED THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 21.8.2017 AND EVEN THE ITA NO. 1166/CHD/2017- E-GOVERNANCE SOCIETY, DEPTT.OF FCS, H.P., SHIMLA 3 REASONS MENTIONED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ARE SEEM ED TO BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT. IT IS A CLEAR CUT CASE OF GROSS NEGL IGENCE AND INACTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AFORESAID PLEA TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE, IN OUR VIEW, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A RE ASONABLE CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. 4. THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF POSTMASTER GENERA L VS. LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD (2012) 3 SCC 563 HAS HELD T HAT RED TAPISM WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT, SLOW MOVEMENT OF FILE S, IMPERSONAL MACHINERY, BUREAUCRATIC METHODOLOGY IN MAKING DECIS IONS ARE NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE AS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONA TION OF DELAY. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE DECISION (SUPRA) OF THE HO NBLE SUPREME COURT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE PERSON(S) CONCERNED WERE WELL AWARE OR CONVERSANT WITH THE ISSUES INVOLVED INCLUDING THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR T AKING UP THE MATTER BY WAY OF FILING A SPECIAL LEAVE PETI TION IN THIS COURT. THEY CANNOT CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE A SEPA RATE PERIOD OF LIMITATION WHEN THE DEPARTMENT WAS POSSES SED WITH COMPETENT PERSONS FAMILIAR WITH COURT PROCEEDI NGS. IN THE ABSENCE OF PLAUSIBLE AND ACCEPTABLE EXPLANAT ION, WE ARE POSING A QUESTION WHY THE DELAY IS TO BE CON DONED MECHANICALLY MERELY BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT OR A WIN G OF THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY BEFORE US. THOUGH WE A RE CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT IN A MATTER OF CONDONATI ON OF DELAY WHEN THERE WAS NO GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR DELIBER ATE INACTION OR LACK OF BONA FIDES, A LIBERAL CONCESSIO N HAS TO BE ADOPTED TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DEPAR TMENT CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF VARIOUS EARLIER DECISIONS. THE CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF IMPERSONAL MACHINERY AND INHERI TED BUREAUCRATIC METHODOLOGY OF MAKING SEVERAL NOTES CA NNOT BE ACCEPTED IN VIEW OF THE MODERN TECHNOLOGIES BEIN G USED AND AVAILABLE. THE LAW OF LIMITATION UNDOUBTED LY BINDS EVERYBODY, INCLUDING THE GOVERNMENT. ITA NO. 1166/CHD/2017- E-GOVERNANCE SOCIETY, DEPTT.OF FCS, H.P., SHIMLA 4 IN OUR VIEW, IT IS THE RIGHT TIME TO INFORM ALL THE GOVERNMENT BODIES, THEIR AGENCIES AND INSTRUMENTALI TIES THAT UNLESS THEY HAVE REASONABLE AND ACCEPTABLE EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY AND THERE WAS BONA FIDE E FFORT, THERE IS NO NEED TO ACCEPT THE USUAL EXPLANATION TH AT THE FILE WAS KEPT PENDING FOR SEVERAL MONTHS/YEARS DUE TO CONSIDERABLE DEGREE OF PROCEDURAL RED TAPE IN THE PROCESS. THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS ARE UNDER A SPE CIAL OBLIGATION TO ENSURE THAT THEY PERFORM THEIR DUTIES WITH DILIGENCE AND COMMITMENT. CONDONATION OF DELAY IS A N EXCEPTION AND SHOULD NOT BE USED AS AN ANTICIPATED BENEFIT FOR THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS. THE LAW SHE LTERS EVERYONE UNDER THE SAME LIGHT AND SHOULD NOT BE SWI RLED FOR THE BENEFIT OF A FEW. 5. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF AMALENDU KUMAR BERA V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (2013) 4 SCC 52, THE APEX COURT HAS HEL D AS UNDER: TRUE IT IS, THAT COURTS SHOULD ALWAYS TAKE LIBERAL APPROACH IN THE MATTER OF CONDONATION OF DELAY, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE APPELLANT IS THE STATE BUT IN A CASE WHERE THERE ARE SERIOUS LACHES AND NEGLIGENCE ON TH E PART OF THE STATE IN CHALLENGING THE DECREE PASSED IN TH E SUIT AND AFFIRMED IN APPEAL, THE STATE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO WAIT TO FILE OBJECTION UNDER SECTION 47 TILL THE DE CREE HOLDER PUTS THE DECREE IN EXECUTION. MERELY BECAU SE THE RESPONDENT IS THE STATE, DELAY IN FILING THE AP PEAL OR REVISION CANNOT AND SHALL NOT BE MECHANICALLY CONSI DERED AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE DELAY SHAL L NOT BE CONDONED. THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASES CITED (SUPRA), IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE CASE IN HAND. 6. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFIED REASON TO CONDONE THE DELAY. THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS, THEREFORE, ITA NO. 1166/CHD/2017- E-GOVERNANCE SOCIETY, DEPTT.OF FCS, H.P., SHIMLA 5 DISMISSED AND IN CONSEQUENCE TO WHICH, THE APPEAL F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO HEREBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07.09.2018 SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 07.09.2018 RKK COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT THE CIT(A) THE DR