Case Law Details
PCIT Vs Britannia Industries Limited (Calcutta High Court)
Introduction: The Calcutta High Court recently ruled on a crucial case involving the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) and Britannia Industries Limited. The court’s decision centered on the dismissal of a delayed revenue appeal, highlighting the importance of adhering to prescribed timelines when filing appeals.
Background: The case in question pertained to assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12, with the initial assessment completed on March 23, 2013. The taxpayer (Britannia Industries Limited) filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and this appeal was allowed on March 28, 2017. Subsequently, the department filed an appeal before the tribunal in June 2017, which was eventually dismissed. The certified copy of the tribunal’s order reached the department on November 22, 2018, setting the last day for filing an appeal within the statutory limitation as April 12, 2019. However, the appeal was filed with the High Court on September 7, 2021, marking a delay of 879 days.
Analysis of the Delay: Upon a comprehensive review of the relevant dates and circumstances, the court observed several unexplained delays contributing to the overall delay of 879 days. Notably, there was an unexplained gap of more than 110 days between April 4, 2019, and March 5, 2020, during which the appeal petition was drafted. Subsequently, an 11-month lockdown period ensued, further delaying the process.
Additionally, there was a delay of approximately 16 and a half months attributed to a change in jurisdiction within the Income Tax Department in August 2020. During this period, the Ministry of Law sent the case papers to the Income Tax Department. The original certified copy of the tribunal’s order was also reported as misplaced, with no explanation provided regarding the circumstances of its misplacement or the steps taken to locate it.
Moreover, it was revealed that the department applied for a fresh certified copy of the order on March 17, 2021, after a delay of six and a half months. Although the registry of the tribunal made the certified copy available on April 9, 2021, it took the department an additional three months to collect it. Finally, the appeal was preferred on September 7, 2021, after a delay of nearly two months following the receipt of the certified copy.
Court’s Decision: The court concluded that there was no satisfactory explanation for the significant and unexplained delays that contributed to the overall delay of 879 days. As a result, the court found no basis for exercising discretion in favor of the appellant/revenue in condoning the delay.
Consequently, the application for the condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the rejection of the appeal. The court also left the substantial questions of law suggested by the revenue open for future consideration.
Conclusion: The Calcutta High Court’s decision in the case of “PCIT Vs Britannia Industries Limited” underscores the importance of adhering to prescribed timelines when filing appeals. The court’s ruling highlights that delays must be adequately explained and that a lack of diligence in pursuing appeals within the statutory limitation can result in the dismissal of such appeals. This case serves as a reminder of the significance of timeliness and diligence in legal proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
The Court : – Heard respective Counsel for either side.
There is a delay of 879 days in filing the appeal.
For the assessment years under consideration namely, AY 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 was completed on 23.3.2013. The assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] and the appeal was allowed on 28.3.2017. Against the said order the department preferred appeal before the tribunal in June 2017 and the appeal was dismissed and the certified copy of the order passed by the tribunal was received by the department on 22.11.2018. the last day for filing the appeal within the period of limitation was 12.4.2019. However, the appeal was filed before this court only on 7.9.2021.
We have elaborately heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application and the affidavit in opposition. On perusal of the relevant dates we find that the delay between 4.4.2019 and 5.3.2020, the date on which the learned advocate for the department had drafted the appeal petition has not been explained, the delay of more than 110 days. Thereafter for a period of 11 months there was lockdown. Subsequently, after a period of about seven and half months the Ministry of Law had send the papers to the Income Tax Department. It is stated that prior to that there was change of jurisdiction in the Income Tax Department during August, 2020 and this also contributed to the delay of another 16 and half months. It is stated that the original certified copy of the order passed by the learned tribunal was misplaced. There is no explanation as to where the original certificate copy got misplaced or steps taken by the department to trace the original certified copy.
It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the respondent/assessee that the assessee has made inquiry with the registry of the tribunal and they have been informed that not only the department is served with the true copy of the certified copy of the order but also the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] as well as the assessing officer. Therefore, it is clear that the department was not diligent in taking effective steps to file the appeal. Thereafter, it appears that the department applied for a fresh certified copy of the order on 17.3.2021 after a period of six and half months and the certified copy was made ready by the registry of the tribunal on 9.4.2021. However, it took three months for the department to collect the certified copy from the registry of the tribunal and after about nearly a delay of two months the appeal was preferred on 7.9.2021.
Thus, we find that there is no proper explanation given for the inordinate delay for us to exercise any discretion in favour of the appellant/revenue.
For such reason, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands rejected and the substantial questions of law suggested by the revenue are left open.
Author Bio
