Case Law Details
It to be settled position of law that right of appeal is neither an absolute nor an ingredient of natural justice, the principle of which must be followed in judicial and quasi-judicial adjudication. The right to appeal is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by the condition in the grant. If a statute gives right to appeal upon certain conditions it is upon fulfilment of those conditions that the right becomes vested in and exercisable by the appellant.
As per s. 253(3), appeal is required to be filed by the assessee or the Department within sixty days from the date of communication of the order to be appealed against on the assessee or the CIT, as the case may be and under s. 253(5), Tribunal may admit an appeal after expiry of relevant period referred to in s. 253(3) if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within that period. No doubt, it is specifically provided that appeal can be admitted after the prescribed period if the assessee satisfies the Tribunal that he/she had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within period as prescribed in this behalf. Where the time for referring an appeal has expired, a valuable right is secured to the respondent or the opposite party and such right ought not to be lightly disturbed [as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, 363]. The appeal preferred or. made after the expiry of the prescribed period can be admitted only if the assessee satisfied the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period. The Tribunal has power to condone the delay only when sufficient cause is shown with a view to advance substantial justice and even after sufficient cause has been shown the party is not entitled to condonation of delay, as a matter of right. If sufficient cause is shown then Tribunal has to enquire, whether in its discretion, it should condone the delay, consideration of bona fides or due diligence is always material. Since all other circumstances are also to be taken into account before applying the provisions of law in this regard and in this case the Department did not file the appeals within due time in this case and cause shown by it does not conclusively show that same is reasonable or sufficient. No doubt, at more than one occasion Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held that State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual because individual would be quick in taking the decision whereas Government machinery, there is impersonal mechanism through its officers or servants but position here is not the same as it was a case of no action on the part of the Assessing Officer inasmuch as even after obtaining authorization from concerned CIT on 30.08.2010, the appeal was filed on 29.03.2012 and no material or evidence to justify such inordinate delay of 557 days has been adduced except taking general type of plea of oversight and pressure of overwork, Department has sought condonation of delay, which, in our considered view, cannot be held to be a sufficient or reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within stipulated time in the light of facts and circumstances explained and discussed above.
IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH ‘H’
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Versus
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
