Ca/7637/2008 Of Senior Bhosale Estate(Huf) v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR 1. Civil Application No. 7637/2008 In Income Tax Appeal St.No.16191/2008(Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs. The Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax.)(Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs. The Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax.) 2.Civil Application No. 7638/2008 in Income Tax Appeal St.No.16193/08.(Senior Bhosale Estate ((HUF) vs. The Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax)(Senior Bhosale Estate ((HUF) vs. The Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax) 3. Civil Application No.7639/2008 in Income Tax Appeal St. No.16195/08(Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs.The Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax)(Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs.The Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax) 4. Civil Application No. 7640/2008 in Income Tax Appeal St.No. 16197/08(Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs. The Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax)(Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs. The Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax) 5. Civil Application No. 7641/2008 in Income Tax Appeal St.No.16199/08.(Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs. The Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax) (Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs. The Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax) 6. Civil Application No. 7642/2008 in Income Tax Appeal St. No.16201/08(Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs. The Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax)(Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs. The Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax) ----------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notes, Office Memoranda ofCoram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. N.S. and S.N. Bhattad, Advocates for the appellants. Mr. A. Parchure, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : A.P.Lavande & Prasanna B. Varale, JJ DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 06.02.2009 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.02.2009 All these applications are being disposed of by 2` common order since the facts involved in all theseapplications are identical. 2.Bytheseapplications,theappellantseekscondonation of delay of 1754 days in filing appealsagainst the order dated 29.12.2003 passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur by which various appealswere disposed of. 3.The appellant in all these applications is HUFwhich is under the control of Court of Wards. Theassessment proceedings were looked after by the Court ofWards right from the assessment proceedings till passingof the impugned order and the Court of Wards appointedits owncounsel for the purpose of attending theproceedings before the authorities under the Income TaxAct. 4.The impugned orders were passed on 29.12.2003against which the appellant has preferred appeals underSection 260 A of the Income Tax Act accompanied by theapplications seeking condonation of delay of 1754 days infiling the appeals. 5.It is the case of the appellant that the appellantwas notaware ofthe impugnedorders passedon29.12.2003 and when auction notice was published in a 3` daily newspaper in the month of June 2008 fixing auctionof the properties of the appellant, the appellant came toknow about the income tax liabilities against the HUF.Thereafter, the appellant moved application before the 3[rd]Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Nagpur for staying auctionproceedings. 6.The Income Tax Department, for the first time,filed copies of the orders passed by the Tribunal and assuch it was on 24.7.2008 that the appellant came to knowabout passing of the impugned orders and huge liabilitieson account of income tax dues. Thereafter they contactedAdvocate Rajan Gupta who was appearing on behalf ofthe Court of Wards and representing the estate of theappellant and after obtaining the necessary documentsfiled appeals accompanied by applications for condonationof delay on 24.10.2008. 3` daily newspaper in the month of June 2008 fixing auctionof the properties of the appellant, the appellant came toknow about the income tax liabilities against the HUF.Thereafter, the appellant moved application before the 3[rd]Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Nagpur for staying auctionproceedings. 6.The Income Tax Department, for the first time,filed copies of the orders passed by the Tribunal and assuch it was on 24.7.2008 that the appellant came to knowabout passing of the impugned orders and huge liabilitieson account of income tax dues. Thereafter they contactedAdvocate Rajan Gupta who was appearing on behalf ofthe Court of Wards and representing the estate of theappellant and after obtaining the necessary documentsfiled appeals accompanied by applications for condonationof delay on 24.10.2008. 7.Mr. N.S. Bhattad, learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant wasnot aware about the impugned orders passed by theTribunal and it was only in June, 2008 that the appellantcame to know about the orders passed by the Tribunalagainsttheappellantwhichwererequiredtobechallenged by filing appeals to this court.The learnedcounsel further submitted that after thepublication ofnotice regarding the sale of the properties of the appellant 4` in daily newspaper in June, 2008, the appellant tookprompt steps to get all the documents necessary tochallenge the orders before this Court and the appealsalong with the application for condonation of delay werefiled promptly. He, therefore, submitted that consideringthe facts and circumstances, the delay in filing the appealsis liable to be condoned. According to the learned counselsufficient cause has to be construed liberally. In supportof this submission, the learned counsel relied upon theJudgmentoftheApexCourtinCollector, LandAcquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji andothers (AIR 1987 Supreme Court, 1353). 8.Per contra, Mr. Parchure, learned counsel forthe respondent submitted that insofar as the respondent isconcerned, the assessee is officer in-charge of the Court ofWards, Nagpur and, therefore, the respondent was notbound to give notice to the appellant in the course ofproceedings.Accordingtothelearnedcounsel,theappellant ought to have contacted the Officer In-charge oftheCourt of Wards, Nagpur and verified about incometax proceedingssince the appellant was aware that theproceedings were pending before the authorities underthe Income Tax Act. He further submitted that the delayisinordinateandunexplainedand,therefore,theapplications deserve to be dismissed. 5` 9.Having heard the learned counsel for theparties and having perused therecord we are of theconsidered opinion that the applications deserve to bedismissed. No doubt the Court of Wards, Nagpur wasmanaging the properties of the appellant. However, theappellant was expected to contact the officer in-charge ofthe Court of Wards, Nagpur to find out about pendingproceedings under the Income Tax Act which appears notto have been done by the appellant. No doubt the term“sufficient cause” has to be liberally construed as held bythe Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition's case(supra)but fact remains that the facts on record clearlydiscloses inaction on the part of the appellant in pursuingthe proceedings before the authorities under the IncomeTax Act.Having regard to the period of delay and onaccount of inaction on the part of the appellant we findthat these are not the fit cases in which inordinate delayof 1754 days in filing appeals deserves to be condoned.We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission of Mr.Bhattad that considering the facts and circumstances ofthe case the limitation should begin to run from the dateof knowledge i.e. from June, 2008. 10.In view of the above discussion, we find nomeritintheseapplications.Accordingly,alltheapplications are dismissed. 6` Income Tax Appeal St. Nos. 16191/2008, 16193/2008,16195/08, 16197/08, 16199/08 & 16201/08 (SeniorBhosale Estate (HUF) vs. The Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax) 10.In view of the above discussion, we find nomeritintheseapplications.Accordingly,alltheapplications are dismissed. 6` Income Tax Appeal St. Nos. 16191/2008, 16193/2008,16195/08, 16197/08, 16199/08 & 16201/08 (SeniorBhosale Estate (HUF) vs. The Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax) In view of the dismissal of the civil applicationsfor condonation of delay in filing appeals, the appeals aredismissed. JUDGE JUDGE patle