Uttam Bhagwanrao Jadhav v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 'a' Bench Pune And Another
[Citation -2015-LL-0302-37]

Citation 2015-LL-0302-37
Appellant Name Uttam Bhagwanrao Jadhav
Respondent Name Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 'a' Bench Pune And Another
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 02/03/2015
Assessment Year 2002-03, 2003-04
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags condonation of delay • inadvertent error
Bot Summary: In these appeals only the question that arise for our consideration is 'whether the Appellate Tribunal committed gross error and took a perverse view while condoning the delay of four and half years in filing of the appeals. At the outset of hearing, the Ld. Departmental Representative for Revenue pointed out that there is a delay of about 4 and 1/2 years in filing Revenue appeal for A.Y.2003-2004 and A.Y.2002-2003. The Ld. Departmental Representative drew our attention to its condonation application dated 12.04.2011 wherein delay in filing of the appeal is attributed to inadvertent mistakes of concerned revenue authorities. The case before us is not a case of procedural red tapism but of inadvertent mistake on part of Revenue officers. Taking overall view of the situation, we condone the delay in both the years and appeals are being decided on merit. We might have taken another view had such application for condonation of delay was made before us. Having regard to other aspects of the case, we are inclined to hold that at least in the facts and circumstances of this case, the order condoning the delay does not appear to be bad. It does not give rise to any substantial question of law.


ITA 68, 69.2013.odt IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2013 WITH ITA/69/2013 UTTAM BHAGWANRAO JADHAV VERSUS INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH PUNE AND ANOTHER Advocate for Appellant Mr. M K Kulkarni Advocate for Respondents: Mr. Alok Sharma CORAM A.V. NIRGUDE & V.K. JADHAV, JJ. Dated: March 02, 2015 PER COURT :- 1. In these appeals only question that arise for our consideration is 'whether Appellate Tribunal committed gross error and took perverse view while condoning delay of four and half years in filing of appeals.' Relevant portion of Judgment is as under :- 2. At outset of hearing, Ld. Departmental Representative for Revenue pointed out that there is delay of about 4 and 1/2 years in filing Revenue appeal for A.Y.2003-2004 and A.Y.2002-2003. Ld. Departmental Representative drew our attention to its condonation application dated 12.04.2011 wherein delay in filing of appeal is attributed to inadvertent mistakes of concerned revenue authorities. We are aware that in big department like Income Tax Department, there is possibility of communication gap due to various administrative reasons and cause of Revenue should not suffer for such inadvertent mistakes committed due to communication gap between ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2020 15:26:16 ::: 2 ITA 68, 69.2013.odt concerned revenue authorities. Taking liberal approach, we condone delay. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lanka Venkateswarlu (Deceased) through legal heirs Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2011) 4 SCC 363, in case of Balwant Singh (Deceased) through legal heirs Vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors. AIR 2010 SC 3043. We have also taken into consideration case of Post Master General and Others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Another reported in (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that condonation of delay is exception and should not be used as anticipated benefit for Government departments and offering usual explanation that file was kept pending due to procedural red tape. case before us is not case of procedural red tapism but of inadvertent mistake on part of Revenue officers. Inadvertent mistake can be attributed to so many facts. Taking overall view of situation, we condone delay in both years and appeals are being decided on merit. 2. learned counsel for appellant took strong exception to manner in which delay is condoned. He asserted that Tribunal rather casually condoned delay. He also pointed out that, even application seeking condonation of delay was not supported with affidavit. He further highlighted words 'inadvertent mistake' used in application and asserted that unless there is explanation coming from department, such mistakes cannot be condoned. He, then placed ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2020 15:26:16 ::: 3 ITA 68, 69.2013.odt reliance on two judgments 1) Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and Another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 and 2) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Harinagar Sugar Mills reported in (2014) 1 DTR judgment page 129 (Bombay). We perused both judgments, but we are not inclined to take another view. We might have taken another view had such application for condonation of delay was made before us. Having regard to other aspects of case, we are inclined to hold that at least in facts and circumstances of this case, order condoning delay does not appear to be bad. It does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Besides, appellant is given opportunity to go before Assessing Officer to claim and get exemption on alternative ground which was not discussed earlier in his case. We do not find it necessary to admit these appeals. Income Tax Appeals are disposed of. ( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) ... aaa/- Uploaded on - 03/03/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2020 15:26:16 Uttam Bhagwanrao Jadhav v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 'a' Bench Pune And Another
Report Error