Tca/734/2017 Of M/S Rattha Holdings Company v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR M/s.Rattha Holdings Company Pvt. Ltd., 37, TTK Road, Alwarpet, Chennai - 600 018. ...Appellant-vs- The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Corporate Circle - 5(1),121, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,Chennai - 600 034. .... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal"C" Bench, Chennai dated 13/04/2016 in I.T.A.No.2051/MDS/2015for the assessment year 2009-10 and against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Chennai - 34 dated31.12.2012 and made in CIT(A)-V/ITA No.322/2011-12 against theorder passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Company Circle V(3), Chennai - 34 dated 30.12.2011(PAN. ) for the assessment year 2009-10. For Respondent : Mrs.R.Hemalatha Senior Standing Counsel (Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.)This appeal by the assessee filed under Section 260-A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act),is directed against the common order passed by the Income TaxAppellateTribunal"C"Bench,Chennai,inI.T.A.No.2051/MDS/2015 for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Though the impugned order passed by the Tribunal relatesto other assessment years as well, for the assessment year 2010- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2011, the assessee has filed a separate appeal in T.C.A.No.735of 2017, which has been admitted by this court and the very samesubstantial question of law is pending in other cases as well. 3. The assessee has filed this appeal raising the followingsubstantial question of law:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in lawin holding that there is no sufficient and goodreason to condone the delay of 914 days in filingthe appeal and thereby dismissing the appealfiled by the Appellate Tribunal?" 4. Heard Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the assesseeand Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for theRevenue. 5. The short question which falls for consideration iswhether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the assessee'sappeal on the ground that it was filed with an inordinate delayof 914 days in filing the appeal and the reason assigned by theassessee is flimsy. 6. We have gone through the reasons assigned by the Tribunalin para 10.1 of the impugned order. It is no doubt true that thedelay is enormous as it is 914 days. However, length of delayalone is not always the criteria to reject an appeal. At times,the reasons given by the appellant for lodging the appealbelatedly will be convincing and therefore, the length of delayin such cases will not be a significant factor and what isrequired to be seen is that the appellant had shown sufficientcause for not preferring the appeal within time. There may becases where the delay will be very marginal, say less than 50days, yet, the appellate Court would be justified in dismissingthe appeal on the ground of lack of bonafides on the part of theappellant, on account of some malafide reasons or certain otherconduct of the appellant which compels the court to dismiss theappeal. 7. Under normal circumstances, no appellant stands tobenefit by lodging the appeal late. We have appeals belatedlyfiled by the appellant as well as the Revenue before us. Unlessand until the delay is actuated by malafides or for certainother reasons with a view to drag on the proceedings, this courthas always adopted a liberal approach in condoning the delay. 8. It is true that law of limitation has been founded on theprinciple to bring finality to proceedings. But it is notintended to foreclose the rights of the parties, where theparties bonafidely approached the appellate Court after theperiod of limitation. 7. Under normal circumstances, no appellant stands tobenefit by lodging the appeal late. We have appeals belatedlyfiled by the appellant as well as the Revenue before us. Unlessand until the delay is actuated by malafides or for certainother reasons with a view to drag on the proceedings, this courthas always adopted a liberal approach in condoning the delay. 8. It is true that law of limitation has been founded on theprinciple to bring finality to proceedings. But it is notintended to foreclose the rights of the parties, where theparties bonafidely approached the appellate Court after theperiod of limitation. 9. The facts in the instant case is not in dispute and theappellant is guilty of belatedly filling the appeal after 914days after the appeal time had lapsed. No doubt the explanationoffered is not convincing but there is nothing on recordbrought by the Revenue to show that the appellant had purposelyand willfully delayed in filing the appeal within the period oflimitation. So far as the assessment for the years 2010-11 and2011-2012 is concerned, CIT(Appeals) had passed an order on09.09.2015 and appeal was filed before the Tribunal within timeand that appeal has been dismissed and the appellant has filedTax Case Appeal. Apart from that, substantial question of lawraised by the appellant is now pending before this Court inother cases as well. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn theattention of this Court to the decision of the Division Bench inthe case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Central 1, Chennai Vs.Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd, [2017 248 Taxman 55 (Madras)]. Itis his submission that the substantial question of law raised inthis appeal is squarely covered by the decision in the case ofChettinad Logistics (supra). 11. The learned counsel for the Revenue submits that thedecision in the case of Chettinad Logistics (supra), cannot beapplied to the facts of the present case and the decision isdistinguishable. 12. Considering the fact that the substantial question oflaw is pending before this Court in other cases as well, we deemit appropriate that the appellant can be given an opportunity tocontest the appeal on merits. However, such opportunity will besubject to certain conditions. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed subject to thecondition that the appellant pays a sum of Rs.5,000/- (RupeesFive thousand only) towards Chief Minister's Public Relief Fundwithin a period of four weeks from today and if the appellantcomplies with the condition, the order passed by the Tribunal,which is impugned in this appeal shall be set aside and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appeal shall be restored to the file of the Tribunal to be heardand decided on merits. It is open to the assessee to place thedecision in the case of Chettinad Logistics (supra) before theTribunal for consideration. No costs. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar svki/pdsTo1.The Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxCorporate Circle - 5(1),121, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,Chennai - 600 034.2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, -C- Bench, Chennai3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai - 34.4.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle V(3), Chennai - 34 Copy to:The Officer-in-Charge,Chief Minister (Special Cell),Fort St.George,Chennai.+1 cc to Mr.R.Sivaraman, Advocate, S.R.No.88536+1 cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate, S.R.No.87632TCA.No.734 of 2017PM(CO)SSM(18/03/2019).