Vijay Solvex Limited v. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Ors

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.144/2012 Vijay Solvex Limited Vs. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Ors. Date of Order: 26/05/2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. Bhandari HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. RANKA Mr. Amol Vyas &Mr. Anant Kasliwal, for appellant. We have heard on the application u/Sec. 5 of theLimitation Act. There is a delay of 61 days. The appeal was preferred to challenge the order ofIncome Tax Appellant Authority (for short 'ITAT')dt.14.10.2011. The appeal was filed on 27.04.2012,thereby, it is old by more than four years by now. The application for condonation of delay has beenfiled. It is stated that a copy of the impugned orderwas received on 20.10.2011 itself. The Board of thecompany decided to send the file for opinion of theAdvocate in the month of November, 2011. The date ofNovember has not been specified. The opinion of theAdvocate was then received in the month of January,2011.It is not specified as to why the matter was not pursuedby the company to seek opinion of the Advocate at theearliest when they were knowing about the period oflimitation to file appeal. As per the opinion, theappeal was to be filed. The company asked the Advocateto prepare the appeal but, due to his pre-occupation,appeal could not be filed within the period oflimitation. We find the application for condonation of delay to be quite vague. It is not specified as to when the file was sent tothe Advocate for preparation of appeal. There is a totalsilence about the period after getting the opinion ofthe Advocate in the month of January, 2011. Theapplication for condonation of delay is thus vague. Itis not necessary that a party need to justify each daysdelay but application cannot be based on vagueaverments, which do not justify the delay. In view of the above, we are not inclined to acceptthe application for condonation of delay when it isbased on vague averments. The application u/Sec.5 of the Limitation Act isaccordingly dismissed so as the appeal. In view of dismissal of the application u/Sec.5 ofthe Limitation Act, the appeal is also dismissed beingbarred by time. (J.K. RANKA), J. S.Kumawat (M.N. Bhandari),J. Certificate- All corrections made in the judgment/order have beenincorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed. S.Kumawat Jr. P.A