In Hi-Tech “Click Of Mouse” Age Some Income Tax Officials Are Yet To Come Out Of Their Love For “Snail Pace” Style Of Working: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has rejected the appeal of the income tax department and refused to condone the delay of 498 days.

"Even in this hi-tech "click of the mouse" age, some of the government officials are yet to come out of their love for the "snail pace" style of working. The worst is when such delays are aimed at simply completing formalities so that the government appeals get dismissed on the grounds of limitation, to the intended benefit of the other party. Whatever the reason, it is either the loss to the exchequer or the abrogation of the valuable rights of the assessee litigating against the state," the bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia observed.

By way of the application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, the appellant/department has sought condonation for the 498-day delay in filing the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act.

On the other hand, the assessee strongly argued that no circumstances have been set up in the application to explain the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, it is not a case that warrants liberality in condoning the delay. The delay simpliciter worked to the detriment of the assessee, and failure on the part of the department has resulted in a substantive right accruing in favour of the assessee.

The provision under Section 260A(1) of the Income Tax Act lays down that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.

Section 260A(2) mandates that the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or an assessee aggrieved by any order passed by the Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court, and such appeal shall be filed within 120 days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the assessee or the department.

The court found that the delay in question, even according to the department, was for an inordinate period of 498 days.

The court stated that what is more intriguing is that the application under consideration appears to be a cyclostyled proforma in which the number of days of delay has been subsequently filled, which amply reflects the total lack of seriousness with which the issue of limitation has been taken up by the department.

"It appears that the concerned department of appellant/revenue has stocked a cyclostyled proforma of delay condonation applications, which are filed after simply inserting the number of days of delay. Can such laxity on the part of one of the litigants be ignored so as to snatch away from the other party a right that accrued to it on account of its non-filing of the appeal in time? The answer, according to us, has to be in the negative," the court said.

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S National Fertilizers Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 750

Date: 23.08.2023

Counsel For Appellant: Shailendera Singh

Counsel For Respondent: Ved Jain

Click Here To Read The Order