HC Dismisses Attraction Owing to Deficiency of Legitimate Rationalization for 227-Day Hold off in Filing

PCIT Vs Milestone Gears Non-public Constrained (Himachal Pradesh Higher Court docket)
Introduction: In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh Superior Court docket dismissed an attraction filed by the Principal Commissioner of Revenue Tax (PCIT) from Milestone Gears Personal Confined. The enchantment, relating to a 100% deduction beneath Area 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was dismissed because of to a significant hold off of 224 times in refiling.
Track record of the Case
The circumstance originates from an assessment manufactured by the Earnings Tax Office on Milestone Gears Pvt. Ltd. for the evaluation 12 months 2012-2013. The initial order, passed on January 30, 2015, assessed the earnings of the respondent at Rs. 4,40,99,840. This purchase was partly overturned on appeal by the Commissioner of Money Tax (Appeals), Shimla, on March 30, 2017. The respondent then escalated the subject to the Profits Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh, which dominated in favor of Milestone Gears on December 6, 2018, granting a 100% deduction below Portion 80IC.
The ITAT’s Reconsideration
Subsequently, the ITAT revisited its final decision on October 11, 2019, because of to a modification asked for in M.A. 99/Chd/2019. This recalibration rendered the department’s initial attractiveness to the Himachal Pradesh Higher Courtroom, submitted on April 16, 2019, infructuous. As a result, the section was provided the liberty to file a refreshing appeal, which they did on October 12, 2022.
Hold off in Submitting the Attraction
The crux of the challenge lies in the 224-day delay from the deadline for filing the attractiveness, exacerbated by the timeline impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Courtroom experienced extended the limitation time period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, enabling an extra 90 times from March 1, 2022, for appeals whose limitation time period experienced expired within just this timeframe. Nonetheless, due to the fact the first limitation for the charm had already expired on February 8, 2020, this extension did not implement to the appellant’s situation.
Court’s Rationale for Dismissal
The Significant Court docket emphasized the necessity for adherence to the statutory timelines unless of course justified by outstanding circumstances. The appellant’s justification, which cited procedural delays and the pandemic, was considered inadequate. The court docket highlighted the absence of owing diligence and observed the set up precedent from the Supreme Court docket that federal government bodies are not entitled to preferential treatment method relating to statutory restrictions.
Complete Textual content OF THE JUDGMENT/Get OF HIMACHAL PRADESH High Courtroom
OMP no.61/2023
For the reasons assigned in the application, the very same is permitted and hold off in refiling the charm is condoned. The software isn disposed of appropriately.
OMP(M) no.14/2023
This application is submitted trying to get condonation of delay of 1085 times in submitting the appeal beneath Section 260-A of the Revenue Tax Act, 1961 complicated the get dt.11.10.2019 handed in M.A. 99/Chd/2019 submitted in ITA no.885/Chd/2017 for the evaluation 12 months 2012-2013.
2. From the facts narrated by the applicant, it appears that the examining officer in the beginning handed an buy on 30.01.2015 beneath Section 143(3) of the Money Tax Act 1961 and assessed the profits of the respondent-asseessee at Rs.4,40,99,840/-.
3. This was challenged in an appeal by the respondent and the stated attractiveness was partly authorized on 30.03.2017 by the Commissioner of Earnings Tax (Appeals), Shimla, in Charm No. IT/73,286,283/14-15/Sml.
4. Towards the claimed get, the respondent-assessee filed an enchantment becoming ITA No.885/Chd/2017 just before the Revenue Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh. The mentioned appeal was allowed on 06.12.2018 and deduction under Section 80IC was granted to the assessee at Rs.6,79,25,673/-.
5. Questioning the mentioned buy, the department submitted Money Tax Attraction no.10/2019 right before this Court on 16.04.2019 in time.
6. It appears that Earnings Tax Appellate Tribunal then recalled its purchase dt. 06.12.2018 on 11.10.2019 in MA no.99/Chd/2019 granting 100% deduction below Part 80IC in regard of Unit-III of the respondent.
7. This is the order, which is sought to be challenged in the latest enchantment.
8. We could also issue that on 28.06.2022, Revenue Tax Charm no.10/2019 formerly filed just before this Court, was declared as owning become infructuous on account of the modification produced in MA no.99/Chd/2019 by the Revenue Tax Appellate Tribunal on 11.10.2019 and liberty was granted by this Court docket to file afresh.
9. The instantaneous attractiveness arrived to be submitted on 12.10.2022 by the appellant.
10. In the software searching for condonation of delay submitted under Segment 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant/appellant contended that the appeal has to be addressed as a person inside of time from 28.06.2022, when Revenue Tax Attractiveness no.10/2019 was disposed of as infructuous by this Courtroom. It is also contended that the hold off is neither willful nor intentional.
11. We might place out that Income Tax Attraction no.10/2019 had no question grow to be infructuous in view of modification of the order challenged therein (dt. 06.12.2018) by the Earnings Tax Appellate Tribunal by passing a new buy on 11.10.2019.
12. The appellant experienced a appropriate to dilemma the order handed on 11.10.2019, by filing appeal underneath Section 260-A of the Act, within just the period of 120 times approved below the Earnings Tax Act.
13. The stated interval ended on 08th February, 2020. Thereafter from about 15th March, 2020 the Covid Pandemic started out, and in watch of the same, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its buy dt. 10.01.2022 titled Re: Conginzance for Extension of Limitation directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 would stand excluded for the reasons of limitation as may perhaps be approved less than any standard or particular regulations in regard of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. It even further said that if limitation experienced expired all through the time period between 15.03.2020 until 28.02.2022 notwithstanding the real balance interval of limitation remaining, all individuals shall have a limitation interval of 90 times from 01.03.2022.
14. Even so, in the immediate scenario, the limitation having expired prior to 15.03.2020 on 08.02.2020 alone, the applicant are not able to get the advantage of the mentioned period of 90 days on 28.02.2022.
15. Admittedly, the fast charm has been desired on 12.10.2022, 224 times after 28.02.2022. No legitimate clarification for this time period of delay is described in the application. We are also of the belief that the day on which Earnings Tax Charm no.10/2019 was disposed of as infructuous on 28.06.2022 had no relevance, since the order impugned in that ITA and in the instantaneous ITA would be diverse orders.
16. In this regard, a different judgment currently being 2012 (3) SCC 563 (Office Of The Main Submit Grasp & Ors vs, Living Media India Ltd.& Anr), it was held:-
“26. In spite of affording a different option to file much better affidavit by positioning ample substance, neither the Section nor the person in-cost has submitted any rationalization for not applying the qualified copy within the approved time period. The other dates described in the affidavit which we have presently extracted, clearly display that there was hold off at just about every phase and besides mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the selection taken, there is no explanation as to why this sort of delay experienced occasioned. Even though it was mentioned by the Division that the delay was due to unavoidable situations and authentic complications, the actuality stays that from working day a person the Division or the particular person/individuals involved have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the make any difference to this Courtroom by taking appropriate steps.
27. It is not in dispute that the individual(s) anxious have been properly aware or conversant with the troubles involved such as the recommended period of limitation for using up the subject by way of filing a exclusive leave petition in this Court. They are unable to assert that they have a different interval of limitation when the Department was possessed with capable people acquainted with courtroom proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable clarification, we are posing a problem why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely due to the fact the Govt or a wing of the Government is a social gathering in advance of us.
28. Although we are acutely aware of the reality that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or deficiency of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to progress considerable justice, we are of the see that in the info and circumstances, the Office are unable to take edge of many previously choices. The declare on account of impersonal equipment and inherited bureaucratic methodology of building quite a few notes can not be approved in look at of the modern technologies getting employed and available. The regulation of limitation undoubtedly binds most people together with the Federal government.”
17. Since we are satisfied that there has been negligence on the section of the applicant/appellant in submitting the enchantment within the time recommended by regulation, this application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.