By C. N. Vaze, Shailesh Kamdar, Chartered Accountants
fiogf49gjkf0d
New Page 2
3 (2008) 114 ITD 121 (Chd.)
ACIT v. Ranbir Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd.
A.Y. : 1994-95. Dated : 25-2-2007
S. 253 — Faulty internal working in a department cannot be
considered as a sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing appeal — Against
the order of the CIT(A), Revenue filed appeal after 8 years and 47 days, and it
was submitted that the delay was on account of communication gap between the
officers of the Department, and hence should be condoned — Based on the facts,
the Department’s contention could not be accepted and the appeal being time
barred by limitation was to be dismissed in limine.
Facts :
For the A.Y. 1994-95, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide an
order dated 8th January 1998, allowed the assessee’s claim for depreciation.
Against this order, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal after a
delay of 8 years and 47 days, along with an application for condonation of
delay, on the ground that the instant appeal was not filed in time, possibly due
to communication gap between the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the
Assessing Officer.
Based on the facts of the case, the Tribunal made the
following observations :
1. No reasonable cause had been explained by the Department
for filing the appeal belatedly. Even when the Commissioner (Appeals) in her
order dated 28th July 1998, and the Tribunal in its order dated 23rd September
2003, for the A.Y. 1995-96 pointed out that no appeal had been filed by the
Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for the A.Y.
1994-95, no action was taken by the Department.
2. It could, therefore, not be believed that there was a
communication gap in the Department which had been claimed as main reason for
filing the appeal belatedly, since the fact was in the notice of the
Department in the year 1998 itself when the order of the Commissioner
(Appeals) was received by the Department. This contention of the Department
could not be accepted and faulty internal working in the Department cannot be
considered to be a sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
3. The appeal was therefore, barred by limitation and
accordingly was to be dismissed in limine.
Cases relied on :
(i) J. B Advani & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. R. D. Shah, CIT
(1969) 72 ITR 395 (SC),
(ii) CIT v. Grindlays Bank Ltd., (1994) 208 ITR 700
(Cal.).
(iii) CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra, (2002) 257 ITR 773
(P&H)
(iv) Soorjamull Nagarmal v. Golden Fibre & Products,
AIR 1969 (Cal.) 381
