Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur vs Ram Pratap Gupta

Heard Shri A.N. Mahajan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue. No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent assessee, despite service having been effected as per the affidavit of service dated 30th March, 2000. The revenue has filed this appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act; 1961 against the order dated 26th July, 1999 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (B Bench), Allahabad, whereby the appeal of the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal-I, Kanpur dated 18.9.1992 has been dismissed In limine on the ground of delay.

From the perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal, It is clear that the last date for filing be appeal was 14.12.1992, whereas appeal was filed on 19.12.1992, that is, five days beyond time. The delay condonation application clearly mentions than there was curfew in the city of Kanpur from 06.12.1992 to 16.12.1992, and therefore, the authorization could be obtained from the Commissioner of Income Tax on 17.12.1992 and soon thereafter, the appeal was filed on 19.12.1992. The Tribunal has refused to condone the ground that Imposition of curfew could not be a ground for authorization being delayed and granted beyond time limit which expired on 14.12.1932.

In our opinion, the observation of the Tribunal is too pedantic and also not correct curfew was imposed prior to the date on which limitation was expiring, delay have been caused In taking authorization also, as it is well known that during imposition of curfew, the movement is completely restricted and there could have been genuine difficulty in getting authorization. That apart, there was only a delay of five days and ft is well settled that the words ''sufficient cause'' used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delay is to be liberally construed. Reliance in this regard Is placed on the following decisions of the Apex Court

(i) Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, .

(ii) The State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality and Others, .

In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the view that the sufficient cause had been brought on record to condone the delay of five days. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order dated 26th July, 1999 is set aside. The delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and the Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal on merits In accordance with law. Since the appeal was filed in the year 1992, it would be appropriate that the Tribunal expedites the hearing of the appeal and decide the same within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Appeal stands allowed as above, however in the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.