Sr. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Alwar & Anr

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.448/2011 Sr. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.Vs.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar & Anr. Date of Order: 26/05/2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BhandariHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. RANKA Mr. P.K. Kasliwal, for appellant. We have heard on the application u/Sec. 5 of theLimitation Act. There is a delay of 234 days in filingof appeal. The application u/Sec.5 of the Limitation Acthas been filed to justify the delay. Para 1, 2 & 3 ofthe application are quoted hereunder for ready referenceto show as to what justification for delay has beengiven.:- “1. That impugned order was passed on 20.06.2008and same was received by appellant company on29.07.2008.2.That the appellant company after receiving theorder, sought approval for filing of the appealbefore the Hon'ble High Court from High PowerCommittee of dispute (C.O.D.) which was receivedrecently on 26.05.2002. 3. That thereafter-appellant contacted the counselfor preparation of the appeal and same was preparedand send for signatures to the office at Alwar.” The impugned order was passed on 20.06.2008 and acopy of which was received by the company on 29.07.2008.The period spent for obtaining copy is not to becounted. The permission to file appeal was received fromHigh Power Committee on 26.05.2009, however, nojustification of delay has been given as to why thepermission was not sought and given by the High PowerCommittee immediately or within the period oflimitation. If there exist lapse in grant of permission or delay therein, it cannot be to the benefit of theappellant. We further find that even permission forfiling the appeal was given on 26.05.2009 but the appealwas filed on 17.07.2009 i.e. after lapse of more than 50days and proper explanation of delay exist. We do not find any justification of delay evenafter the permission. It is submitted that after thepermission, it took time to prepare the appeal and tosend it for signatures. It seems that the appellantmoved the file at their leisure and not in consonance tothe provisions of law. They were knowing about thelimitation in filing of the appeal but did not adhere tothe schedule required for it. The application does notexplain the delay though it may not be for each day butcondonation can not be sought without properexplanation. In view of the above, the application u/Sec. 5 ofthe Limitation Act is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the application u/Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, the appeal is also dismissedbeing barred by limitation. Certificate- All corrections made in the judgment/order have beenincorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed. S.Kumawat Jr. P.A