I N T H E I N C O M E T X AP P EL L AT E T R I BU N L S M C BEN C H , C H D I G AR H BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.905 to 908/CHD/2016 A.Ys : 2006-07 to 2009-10 Sub Registrar/Jt.Sub Registrar, Vs DIT(CIB), Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, Chandigarh. Solan (HP). PAN/TAN : PTLT10280E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Rishi Tandon, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Manjit Singh, DR Date of Hearing : 26.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2016 O R D E R All appeals by assessee are directed against common order of ld. CIT(Appeals), Shimla dated 12.01.2016 for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10, challenging levy of penalty under section 271FA of Income Tax Act. 2. According to assessee, impugned order was received on 15.01.2016. However, appeals are filed before Tribunal on 12.08.2016, therefore, all appeals are time barred by 150 days. 2 3. assessee filed applications for condonation of delay of 150 days which is supported by affidavit of Shri Sanjeet Sharma, Sub Registrar, Tehsil Kandaghat. assessee in application for condonation of delay also admitted that impugned orders were received in his office on 15.01.2016. It is also stated that applicant being government officer was required prior sanction/approval of supervising authorities before taking any action in matter. assessee on receipt of impugned order, took up matter with Registrar ( Dy. Commissioner, Solan) and referred this case for obtaining necessary approval through Inspector General of Registration, Government of Himachal Pradesh and thereafter, Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue) to Government of Himachal Pradesh after consulting matter with Law Department, had conveyed approval of Government for filing appeal. Thereafter, applicant approached Law Department for providing Government Advocate and thereafter, appeal was filed. It is, therefore, stated that assessee has sufficient ground/prevented him from filing appeal within period of limitation. assessee, therefore, prayed that delay of 150 days in each appeal may be condoned. 4. I have heard ld. Representatives of both parties on question of limitation. ld. counsel for 3 assessee reiterated facts stated in application for condonation of delay and filed copy of letter dated 12.06.2016 of Dy. Secretary ( Revenue ) to Government of Himachal Pradesh in which prayer was made for filing appeal because District Attorney has refused to file appeal. It is also stated that appeal shall have to be filed before ITAT at Chandigarh and opinion of this Department was sought as to who would be appropriate person to file appeal. Therefore, Shri Rishi Tandon, Advocate was allowed to be engaged for filing appeal. ld. counsel for assessee also placed on record copy of order dated 26.07.2016 issued by Shri Rakesh Kanwar, IAS, Dy. Commissioner, Solan with regard to filing of appeal on behalf of Sub Registrar, Kandaghat before Tribunal and it was conveyed to assessee that appeal would be filed by Shri Rishi Tandon, Advocate who has been engaged in this regard. ld. counsel for assessee, therefore, submitted that assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing appeal within period of limitation. 4(i) On other hand, ld. DR submitted that assessee has not taken steps on time and no reasonable cause have been disclosed for not filing appeal within period of limitation. ld. DR opposed request of condonation of delay in matter. 4 5. I have considered rival contentions. It is admitted fact that impugned order was received by assessee on 15.01.2016. appeal before Tribunal shall have to be filed within 60 days of receipt of impugned order. ld. counsel for assessee referred to letter dated 26.07.2016 issued by Shri Rakesh Kanwar, Dy. Commissioner, District Solan to assessee which was in reference to letter of assessee dated 17.03.2016 for filing appeal before Tribunal. When ld. counsel for assessee was asked to explain as to why assessee has not taken steps within time, no explanation have been given. aforesaid letter, therefore, shows that assessee has written letter only on 17.03.2016 for filing appeal before Tribunal and on that day, 60 days have already expired for filing of appeal before Tribunal. It would, therefore prove that assessee did not take any step for filing of appeal before Tribunal even within period of limitation provided under Income Tax Act to assessee. copy of another letter dated 12.06.2016 have been placed on record of Dy. Secretary (Revenue), Govt. of Himachal Pradesh in which advice of Legal Department have been taken into consideration to show that District Attorney has refused to file appeal. Since it is income tax matter, therefore, District Attorney may not be authorized to file appeal in income tax 5 matter. ld. counsel for assessee did not explain as to how District Attorney was competent to file appeal in income tax matter. Ultimately, crux of both letters filed on record shows that Shri Rishi Tandon, Advocate has been engaged on behalf of assessee to file present appeal. However, it is not explained as to why appeal was not filed even on information so received from concerned authorities. What steps have been taken during this period have also not been explained. These facts, therefore, would clearly prove that assessee was aware of order of CIT(A) against which appeal shall have to be filed before Tribunal. office of Sub Registrar (assessee) was well aware of filing of appeal within period of limitation. In absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, delay cannot be condoned mechanically merely because one of wings of Himachal Pradesh Government was party before Tribunal. Government Departments are under special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. condonation of delay is exception and should not be used as anticipated benefit for Government departments. I rely upon decision of Supreme Court in case of O/o Chief Post Master General & others Vs Living Media India Ltd. & another 348 ITR 7 (S.C) in which it was 6 held as under : Held, dismissing and applications, Department had itself mentioned in its affidavit and was aware of date of judgment of Division Bench of High Court as September 11, 2009. Even, according to deponent, its counsel had applied for certified copy of judgment only on January 8,2010, and copy was received by Department on very same day. There was no explanation for not applying for certified copy of judgement on September 11, 2009, or at least within reasonable time. fact remains that certified copy was applied for only on January 8, 2010, i.e. after period of nearly four months. Neither Department nor person incharge had filed explanation for not applying for certified copy within prescribed period. other dates mentioned in affidavit clearly showed that there was delay at every stage and there was no explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. Department or person concerned had not evinced diligence in prosecuting matter to court by taking appropriate steps. persons concerned were well aware or conversant with issues involved including prescribed period of limitation for taking up matter by way of filing special leave petition in Supreme Court. In absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, delay could not be condoned mechanically merely because Government or wing of Government was party before court. Though in matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, liberal concession had to be adopted to advance substantial justice, in facts and circumstances, claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes could not be accepted in view of modern technologies being used and available. Considering fact that there was no proper explanation offered by Department for delay except mentioning of various dates, Department had failed to give acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such huge delay. BY COURT : Unless government bodies, their agencies and instrumen- talities have reasonable and acceptable explanation for delay and there 7 was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept usual explanation that file was kept pending for several months or years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in process. Government Departments are under special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is exception and should not be used as anticipated benefit for Government Departments. law shelters everyone under same light and should not be swirled for benefit of few. law of limitation binds everybody including Government. 6. Considering totality of facts and circumstances, I am of view that assessee has failed to explain any reasonable cause for not filing appeal within period of limitation. Thus, delay in filing appeals cannot be condoned. I, therefore, reject applications for filing condonation of delay. Resultantly, all appeals of assessee are treated as time barred. 7. In result, all appeals of assessee are dismissed in limine being time barred. O r d e r p r on o u n c ed i n t h e O p e n Cou r t . Sd/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 28th September, 2016. Poonam Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT,DR Assistant Registrar, ITAT/CHD Sub Registrar/Jt.Sub Registrar v. DIT(CIB), Chandigarh