Joint Sub Registrar vs Director of Income Tax

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.—This order shall dispose of IT Appeal Nos. 344 of 2013, 2, 4, 8, 9, 39 to 49 and 51 to 59 of 2014 as the Tribunal vide one consolidated order dt. 30th May, 2013 impugned in these appeals decided the same. However, the facts are being extracted from IT Appeal No. 344 of 2013. IT Appeal No. 344 of 2013 has been preferred by the appellant under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") against the consolidated order dt. 30th May, 2013, Annex. A. 3 passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (in short, "the Tribunal) in ITA No. 229/Asr/2013, for the asst. yr. 2006-07, claiming following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in sustaining the penalty imposed under s. 271FA on the appellant who is a ''Joint Sub Registrar'', specifically when the statutory obligation as regards furnishing of the AIR'' information, as provided for under s. 285BA(1)(d) is only cast upon the ''Registrar'' or ''Sub Registrar''?

Whether the Tribunal had erred in law by failing to appreciate that the delay in furnishing the requisite AIR information by the appellant which was initially prompted by bona fide ignorance as regards the ''statutory obligation'' under s. 285BA(1) (i.e. a new statutory provision), which thereafter on appellant subsequently getting aware as regards the same, was further delayed due to multiple reasons'' on the part of his office, i.e., poor infrastructure which was manned by negligible staff not savvy with computers, maintenance of voluminous records/information in Punjabi that had to be got translated in English, absolute absence of any professional guidance from the superiors or the Departmental authorities of the State Government, outsourcing of the work of compiling the soft copies of the information, applying for TAN No. etc. which in itself suffered from administrative restrictions, strict procedures, approvals of superior authorities etc. as regards which the appellant had neither any say, nor any free hand, therefore in itself constituted a reasonable cause, pursuant whereto in the light of s. 273B no penalty under s. 271FA for the delay in furnishing the AIR information was liable to be imposed?

Whether the Tribunal had erred in law by failing to appreciate that in the light of bona fide ignorance on the part of the appellant as regards the statutory obligation under s. 285BA(1) (i.e. a new statutory provision), the delay in furnishing of requisite information by the appellant who was working in a mofussil area with absolutely inadequate infrastructure, and by virtue of the very nature of his office had never been assessed to income-tax and thus had no occasion of availing assistance of any chartered accountant or a tax consultant, therefore in the light of s. 273B was not liable to be visited with any penalty under s. 271FA of the Act?

Whether the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the levy of penalty under s. 271FA of the Act in the hands of the appellant on the basis of premature observations, findings and investigations?

Whether the Tribunal is right in law in sustaining the penalty imposed by the respondent under s. 271FA beyond the time limitation prescribed under s. 275(1)(c) of the Act?

Whether the Tribunal has erred in law and acted in violation of the principles of natural justice while disposing of the appeal of the appellant vide consolidated order dt. 30th May, 2013 passed with respect to 39 appeals pertaining to 10 different appellants, by solely referring to the facts involved in the case of The Jt. Sub Registrar Bariwala, District Bathinda vs. Director of IT (ITA No. 137/Asr/2013), and rather by passing the facts and the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant in its case, specifically when the same as in comparison to the facts involved in the case relied upon by the Tribunal while dismissing the case of the appellant were differently placed?"

A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in IT Appeal No. 344 of 2013 may be noticed. The appellant is a Joint Sub Registrar working in the mofussil area of District Bathinda. Under s. 285BA(1)(d) of the Act r/w r. 114E of the IT Rules. 1962 (in short, "the Rules"), ''Registrar'' or ''Sub Registrar'' appointed under s. 6 of the Registration Act, 1908 was subjected to a statutory obligation of furnishing annual information return (AIR) pertaining to purchase/sale deed exceeding an amount of Rs. 30 lacs so registered by him during a year. The said AIR was required to be furnished by the Registrar or the Sub Registrar with the appropriate authority in prescribed Form 61A of the rules wherein part of the information was to be furnished on computer readable media while remaining part of the information was to be delivered in paper form. The appellant-Jt. Sub Registrar, Sangat, District Bathinda who was working in a mofussil area of the District was not aware of any such statutory obligation by holding the office as that of Jt. Sub Registrar. Show-cause notice was issued to the appellant under s. 271FA of the Act on 8th Oct., 2010 and followed by reminder dt. 15th Nov., 2000 whereby he was called upon to explain as to why penalty under s. 271FA of the Act be not imposed on him. The appellant put in appearance. On learning that AIR was to be e-filed, he immediately applied for TAN No. On 19th Oct., 2010, on receipt of TAN No., the appellant uploaded the required information. Vide order dt. 7th Jan., 2011, Annex. A. 1, after considering the matter, the respondent imposed penalty under s. 271FA of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,50,900 (i.e. Rs. 100 per day for 1509 days from 1st Sept., 2006 to 19th Oct., 2010). The appeal filed by the appellant against the order was partly allowed by the CIT(A) vide order dt. 31st Jan., 2013, Annex. A. 2, whereby the penalty was to be recomputed by taking the period of default w.e.f. 1st Dec. 2006 instead of 31st Aug., 2006 onwards. The appellant filed further appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dt. 30th May, 2013, Annex., A. 3, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence the instant appeal by the appellant.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the assessee had acted bona fide and was, therefore, entitled to the protection of s. 273B of the Act. A reference was made to judgment as Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, . In IT Appeal No. 344 of 2013, it was also urged that Jt. Sub Registrar, Sangat could not have been penalized as the provision of s. 285BA of the Act uses the expression ''Registrar'' or ''Sub-Registrar''. In such circumstances, the levy of penalty was bad. Additionally, in IT Appeal No. 47 of 2014 (The Sub Registrar, Malout, District Muktsar vs. Director of IT), it was contended that the requisite information was supplied manually and no notice under s. 285BA(4) of the Act was issued that the information which was supplied was defective. According to the learned counsel, in the absence of any notice issued under s. 285BA(4) of the Act, the levy of penalty under s. 271FA of the Act was not called for.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the appeal.

Sec. 285BA was inserted in the Act by Finance Act 2003 w.e.f. 1st April, 2004. However, Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 substituted new provision in place of old provision w.e.f. 1st April, 2005 in the following terms:

"285BA. (1) Any person, being--

(a) an assessee; or

(b) the prescribed person in the case of an office of Government; or

(c) a local authority or other public body or association; or

(d) the Registrar or Sub-Registrar appointed under s. 6 of the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908); or

(e) the registering authority empowered to register motor vehicles under Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988); or

(f) the Post Master General as referred to in cl. (j) of s. 2 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (6 of 1898); or

(g) the Collector referred to in cl. (c) of s. 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894); or

(h) the recognised stock exchange referred to in cl. (f) of s. 2 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (42 of 1956); or

(i) an officer of the Reserve Bank of India, constituted under s. 3 of the Reserve Bank of India Act. 1934 (2 of 1934); or

(j) a depository referred to in cl. (e) of sub-s. (1) of s. 2 of the Depositories Act. 1996 (22 of 1996).

who is responsible for registering, or, maintaining books of account or other document containing a record of any specified financial transaction, under any law for the time being in force, shall furnish an annual information return in respect of such specified financial transaction which is registered or recorded by him during any financial year beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2004 and information relating to which is relevant and required for the purposes of this Act, to he prescribed IT authorities or such other authority or agency as may be prescribed.

(2) The annual information return referred to in sub-s. (1) shall be furnished within the prescribed time after the end of such financial year, in such form and manner (including on a floppy, diskette, magnetic cartridge tape, CD-ROM or any computer readable media) as may be prescribed.

(3) For the purposes of sub-s. (1), specified financial transaction'' means any--

(a) transaction of purchase, sale or exchange of goods or property or right or interest in a property; or

(b) transaction for rendering any service; or

(c) transaction under a works contract; or

(d) transaction by way of an investment made or an expenditure incurred; or

(e) transaction for taking or accepting any loan or deposit, which may be prescribed:

Provided that the Board may prescribe different values for different transactions in respect of different persons having regard to the nature of such transaction:

Provided further that the value or, as the case may be, the aggregate value of such transactions during a financial year so prescribed shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees.

(4) Where the prescribed IT authorities considers that the AIR furnished under sub-s. (1) is defective, he may intimate the defect to the person who has furnished such return and give him an opportunity of rectifying the defect within a period of one month from the date of such intimation or within such further period which, on an application made in this behalf, the prescribed IT authority may, in his discretion, allow; and if the defect is not rectified within the said period of one month or, as the case may be, the further period so allowed, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, such return shall be treated as an invalid return and the provisions of this Act shall apply as if such person had failed to furnish the annual information return.

(5) Where a person who is required to furnish an annual information return under sub-s. (1) has not furnished the same within the prescribed time, the prescribed IT authority may serve upon such person a notice requiring him to furnish such return within a period not exceeding sixty days from the date of service of such notice and he shall furnish the annual information return within the time specified in the notice."

Sub-s. (1) provides that any person specified in els. (a) to (j) therein who is responsible for registering or maintaining books of account or other documents containing a record of any specified financial transaction, under any law for the time being in force, shall furnish an annual information report in respect of such specified financial transaction to the prescribed IT authority or such other authority or agency as may be prescribed. The return is required to be furnished relating to transactions which have been registered or recorded on or after 1st April, 2004. Under sub-s. (2), the AIR shall be furnished in the prescribed format and manner and also within the prescribed time after the end of the financial year.

Sub-s. (3) defines the ''specified financial transaction'' to mean any transaction of purchase, sale or exchange of goods or property or right or interest in a property or transaction for rendering any service or transaction under a works contract or transaction by way of an investment made or expenditure incurred or a transaction for taking or accepting any loan or deposit as may be prescribed. It has also been provided that the Board may prescribe different monetary values of different transactions in respect of different persons. The said sub-section further provides that the value or the aggregate value of such transaction during a financial year so prescribed shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees.

By virtue of sub-s. (4), the defective AIR can be rectified by the person furnishing it under sub-s. (1) to the prescribed IT authority. An intimation of the defect and opportunity to remove the same shall be provided by the said authority. The period for removing the defect would be one month from the date of intimation or any further period which the prescribed IT authority may allow. In the event of failure to cure the defect, such return shall be treated to be invalid and all consequences under the Act shall follow as if no such return had been filed.

According to sub-s. (5), where any person who is required to furnish an AIR has not furnished the same within the prescribed time, the prescribed IT authority may serve upon such person a notice requiring him to furnish such return within a period not exceeding sixty days from the date of service of such notice.

A notification has been issued on 1st Dec., 2004 prescribing r. 114E relating to furnishing of annual information return. The form and manner in which the AIR shall be furnished has been prescribed in this rule. Clause (2) of the table prescribes the persons who shall furnish annual information return. The nature of transactions is specified in corresponding entry of cl. (3) thereof. Under r. 114E, such return shall be furnished in Form No. 61A and shall be verified in the manner indicated therein. It has also been provided that AIR be furnished on or before 31st of August immediately following the financial year in which transaction is registered or recorded.

The Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 has inserted a new s. 271FA providing for penalty for failure to furnish the annual information return. It reads thus:

"271FA. If a person who is required to furnish an annual information return, as required under sub-s. (1) of s. 285BA, fails to furnish such return within the time prescribed under that sub-section, the IT authority prescribed under the said sub-section may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of one hundred rupees for every day during which the failure continues."

The said section provides that where any person who is required to furnish the AIR fails to furnish the same within the prescribed time, the prescribed IT authority may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty a sum of one hundred rupees for every day during which the failure continues. However, under s. 273B of the IT Act, 1961, no penalty under s. 271AA (sic-s. 271FA) of the Act would be imposed where assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the failure.

Learned counsel for the assessee had argued the case of Sub Registrar, Bariwala, District Bathinda as a lead case before the Tribunal and pleaded that all other cases are similar and identical. However, in the case of Sub Registrar, Muktsar, an additional plea was raised to substantiate reasonable cause within the ambit of s. 273B of the Act. Thus, we proceed to examine cases of Sub Registrar, Bariwala and Muktsar in addition to case of Sub Registrar, Sangat in which the main order is being written.

The findings in the case of Sub Registrar. Bariwala which were accepted to be identical to all other cases recorded by the Tribunal in its order dt. 30th May. 2013, Annex. A. 3 read thus:

"15. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. In the present case, the main argument of the learned counsel for the assessee was that the assessee was ignorant of law i.e. about s. 285BA of the Act. He argued that the IT authority has not served any notices on the assessee and when the notice was served, the assessee filed the annual information return (in short. AIR) and no penalty should be accordingly levied upon the assessee. In this regard, we are of the view on perusal of s. 285BA of the Act, which was introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 1st April. 2005, it is not the case that this section has been introduced for the first time by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004. Prior to its substitution s. 285BA was inserted by the Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 1st April, 2004 where any assessee who enters into any financial transaction, as may be prescribed, with any other person, shall furnish, within the prescribed time, an AIR in such form and manner, as may be prescribed in respect of such financial transaction entered into by him during any previous year. Rules 114A to 114E prescribes such return to be furnished in Form No. 61A and shall be verified in the manner indicated therein. At item No. 6 of the said rule, return shall be furnished on or before 31st August, immediately following the financial year in which the transaction is registered or recorded. Sec. 285BA(5) is reproduced for the sake of clarity as under:

''(5) Where a person who is required to furnish an annual information return under sub-s. (1) has not furnished the same within the prescribed time, the prescribed IT authority may serve upon such person a notice requiring him to furnish such return within a period not exceeding sixty days from the date of service of such notice and he shall furnish the annual information return within the time specified in the notice."

15.1 The learned counsel for the assessee has taken the shelter of s. 285BA(5) of the Act which is reproduced hereinabove that, the IT authority is under a mandate to serve the notice to the assessee in case AIR is not filed for years together after insertion of the section by the Finance (No. 2) Act 2003 w.e.f. 1st April, 2004 initially and thereafter by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 1st April, 2005 mentioned hereinabove. Whereas this is not a case, the words used by the statute in s. 285BA(5) gives option for the IT authority to serve notice which may or may not be served upon. The word ''may'' used in s. 285BA(5) clearly indicates the option for the IT authority. It is not obligatory on the IT authority to serve such notice. Therefore, interpretation has to be strictly construed. There is no ambiguity in the same. The Courts cannot add or amend and by construction cannot make up the deficiencies in the Act. It is contrary to all rules of construction unless the provision as it stands is meaningless or having a doubtful meaning. We are not entitled to usurp legislative function in disguise of interpretation. The Courts are meant to interpret law, cannot legislate it. Our views find support from the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors and Others, . In the present case, issuance and service of notice under s. 285BA(5) is not obligatory on the IT authority. Therefore, arguments made by the learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. P.N. Arora, are rejected to this extent.

15.2 As regard the notice dt. 20th Nov., 2006 issued by CIT(CIB), Chandigarh to the assessee, it is surprising that how the said notice has been in the possession of the assessee. Nothing has been brought on record by the learned counsel for the assessee in this respect. Reasonable presumption is made that this notice has also been served upon the assessee dt. 20th Nov., 2006 and which has not been complied with. As per remand report, as argued by the learned Departmental Representative and also record of Director of IT (CIB) which has been verified by the learned counsel that various notices have been served i.e. on 20th Nov., 2006, 4th April, 2007, 11th Jan., 2008, 12th Dec., 2008, 21st May, 2009, 20th Jan., 2010 and 12th March, 2010. All the said seven notices remained uncomplied with, at the last known address given by the assessee which is as under:

Sub Registrar

Bariwala

Muktsar

15.3 Penalty order dt. 22nd Dec., 2010 has been served on the assessee is not in dispute against which the assessee filed appeal on 31st Jan., 2011 before the learned CIT(A), Bathinda. The learned CIT(A)''s order dt. 14th Dec., 2012 has also been served upon the assessee on 9th Jan., 2013 at the same address has also not been disputed by the learned counsel for the assessee. Therefore, the arguments made by the learned counsel for the assessee that one notice dt. 20th Nov., 2006 having mentioned wrong district is part of the paper book cannot prove that the notice dt. 20th Nov., 2006 and other six notices as mentioned hereinabove have not been issued and served on the assessee. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee is rejected that no notice under s. 285BA(5) has been issued/serviced upon the assessee even in remand proceedings when all notices were confronted. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the assessee on the decisions of various Courts of law on service of notice cannot be made applicable in the present case and cannot help the assessee.

15.4 As regards the decision of the Hon''ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Patan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. Director of Income Tax (CIB), , the learned CIT(A) has taken full cognizance of the said decision and has directed the CIT(CIB) to recompute the default w.e.f. 1st Dec., 2006 instead of 31st Aug., 2006 for the asst. yr. 2006-07 and thereafter in the following years has rightly confirmed the default being the first advisory letter issued on 20th Nov., 2006 in view of our findings hereinabove.

15.5 As regards the reasonable cause, as mentioned hereinabove, the learned CIT(A) has taken cognizance in the case of Patan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. vs. Director of IT (supra), decided by the Hon''ble Gujarat High Court. But at the same time, we may refer that ignorance of law is not an excuse, as per our findings hereinabove and also as per decision of the Hon''ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Patan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. (supra), and the Sub Registrar cannot be an exception to the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court mentioned hereinabove. It is settled law that ignorance of law is of no excuse, as decided by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, ."

A perusal of the above findings shows that inspite of having sent several letters to the appellant between the period from 20th Nov., 2006 to 12th March, 2010, the requisite information was not furnished by him within the stipulated period. The plea of ignorance of law has also been negatived by the Tribunal. The findings of the Tribunal being based on record, the same could not be held to be erroneous.

Further, the Tribunal on the basis of submissions made by learned counsel for the assessees had decided the appeals of Sub Registrar, Muktsar for asst. yrs. 2005-06 to 2009-10 in para 17 of the order. It was noticed that the facts in these appeals were also similar to facts in Sub Registrar, Bariwala with an additional fact that the Sub Registrar, Muktsar had filed the AIR for the asst. yr. 2005-06 on 8th March, 2006 after a delay of 97 days which shows that the assessee was very much aware of the provisions of s. 285BA of the Act, whereas for the asst. yrs. 2006-07 to 2009-10, it was filed on 3rd Nov., 2010. It was concluded that the assessee was a habitual defaulter in the absence of any satisfactory explanation having been furnished by him. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal.

Still further, though appeals in the cases of Sub Registrar, Sangat, District Bathinda were not argued separately being identical on facts with the case of Sub Registrar, Bariwala, the question whether there exists reasonable or sufficient cause in terms of s. 273B of the Act is a question of fact dependent upon appreciation of the material and the plea raised by the assessee. In the present case, the assessing authority on appreciation of material had concluded that the filer of the returns was habitual defaulter without any concern or respect for the law. The CIT(A) on appeal by the assessee had upheld the aforesaid finding and which order was confirmed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the assessee having accepted before the Tribunal that the facts being similar to the case of Sub Registrar, Bariwala, the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below being based on record are affirmed.

Furthermore, in respect of proposed question No. 6, perusal of order of the Tribunal clearly shows that the Tribunal had adjudicated 39 appeals by one consolidated order. Learned counsel for the assessees Shri P.N. Arora, advocate who was representing the appellant had categorically submitted before the Tribunal that the case of ''Sub Registrar'' Bariwala, District Muktsar was being argued first and thereafter stated that the facts of all other appeals were identical and therefore, his submissions in that case may be applied in all other appeals as well. This fact is established from reading of following paras of the order of the Tribunal dt. 30th May, 2013:

"4. The learned counsel for the assessee Mr. P.N. Arora, advocate argued the appeals in the case of the Sub Registrar, Bariwala first and thereafter argued that since the facts in all other appeals are identical, his arguments shall be identical and be applied in all other appeals mentioned hereinabove."

"18. As regards other appeals in ITA Nos. 135 and 136/Asr/2013 in the case of Sub Registrar, Doda, in ITA Nos. 141 to 143/Asr/2013 in the case of Sub Registrar, Lakhewali, in ITA Nos. 144 to 148/Asr/2013 in the case of Sub Registrar, Maur Mandi, in ITA Nos. 229 to 232/Asr/2013 in the case of Sub Registrar, Sangat, in ITA Nos. 233 to 237/Asr/2013 in the case of Sub Registrar, Lambi and in ITA Nos. 238 to 241/Asr/2013 in the case of Sub Registrar, Malout, in ITA Nos. 242 to 246/Asr/2013 in the case of Sub Registrar, Talwandi and in ITA Nos. 247 and 248/Asr/2013 in the case of Sub Registrar, Rampura Phul, the facts in the present appeals have been argued by the learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. P.N. Arora to be identical and also the learned Departmental Representative has argued that the facts being identical as in the case of Sub Registrar, Bariwala in ITA Nos. 137 to 140/Asr/2013 and after perusal of the records in the said appeals, we find that the facts in the said appeals are identical to the facts of the case of Sub Registrar Bariwala and Muktsar. Therefore, following the same we find no infirmity in the orders of the learned CIT(A). Our order will be identically applicable to the facts of the present cases before us in all the assessees of all the years. Accordingly, all the appeals of the assessees in all the years are dismissed."

The plausible explanations in terms of s. 273B of the Act in the cases of Sub Registrar, Talwandi Saboo, Sub Registrar, Lambi, Sub Registrar, Malout, Sub Registrar, Maur Mandi, Sub Registrar, Doda and Sub Registrar, Rampura Phul are also similar and therefore, the levy of penalty under s. 271FA of the Act cannot be faulted.

The Jt. Sub Registrar is also the prescribed authority for the sub-district in terms of ss. 6 and 7 of the Registration Act, 1908. In the absence of any factual foundation having been laid before the AO, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal regarding the levy of penalty on the Joint Sub Registrar, Sangat, the said plea raised for the first time before the High Court would not be permissible. Equally, the plea of no notice having been issued under s. 285BA(4) of the Act in IT Appeal No. 47 of 2014 to Sub Registrar, Malout loses significance in the absence of such contention having been raised before the authorities below. Question No. 5 also does not arise as no such argument regarding action being beyond limitation under s. 275(1)(c) of the Act was ever raised before any of the authorities below.

Adverting to the judgment in PricewaterhouseCoopers (P) Ltd.''s case (supra), the issue before the apex Court was relating to levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Supreme Court on appreciation of facts therein had concluded that the tax audit report does not suggest that there was any concealment of income. There was also no question of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars. It was further noticed that the action of the assessee was bona fide and due to inadvertent error for which no penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act could be imposed. The factual matrix being different in the present appeals, the learned counsel for the appellant cannot derive any benefit therefrom. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises. Consequently, the appeals stand dismissed. Since the appeals have been dismissed on merits, no order is being passed on the applications for condonation of delay under s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in filing the appeals, which are left open.