Surinder Kumar Boveja vs Commissioner Of Wealth Tax
2006 Latest Caselaw 818 Del

JUDGMENT

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.

Page 1717

1. The assessed in this case was assessed to wealth tax by the Wealth Tax Officer (herein after referred as the `WTO'). The assessed was holder of a ticket of Delhi Stock Exchange. The WTO valued the tickets at Rs. 25 lakhs for Page 1718 the year 1991-92 and Rs. 40 lakhs for the year 1992-93. The assessed preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax and vide an order dated 28.3.2000, the appeal was partly allowed. WTO was directed to adopt valuation of Rs. 15 lakhs for the assessment year 1991-92 and Rs. 20 lakhs for the assessment year 1992-93. The assessed felt contended with the relief granted and did not prefer an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax. Revenue, however, preferred an appeal against the order before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the appeal was disposed of vide order dated 23.9.2004 The Appellate Tribunal while rejecting the appeal of the Revenue observed that the order of CIT regarding valuation of the ticket was not in accordance with law. The Tribunal was of the opinion that value of the ticket could not be more than the amount, for which ticket was purchased as the ticket was non- transferable initially. Since the assessed had not preferred an appeal against the order, the order of CWT (A) regarding valuation of ticket was upheld. The appeal of Revenue was dismissed.

2. After the order of Tribunal containing above observation, the assessed/ appellant preferred appeals before the Appellate Tribunal against the orders of the CWT (A) dated 28.3.2000 and 8.05.2003. Out of the said two appeals, one was delayed by four years and 245 days and other was delayed by one year and 154 days. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals without going into merits of the case on ground of limitation holding that the decision of the CWT (A) has become final and it would be against the spirit of order of the Tribunal to grant relief to the assessed. It was observed that proceedings before the Tribunal were continuation of the assessment proceedings and the Tribunal merely decides dispute between the parties. Even if interpretation of law is involved, it cannot be said that the Tribunal lays down the law. So it would not be correct to say that the tax liability with which the assessed got burdened was not in accordance with law. The Tribunal relied upon the judgment reported as 266 (1992) STC Vol 87 Baroda Rayon Corp Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax. In this judgment Gujarat High Court has held that : -

In our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly pointed out that when a Tribunal decides any question and interprets a provision of law, while doing so, it cannot be said to be laying down any law for the State or settling the law for the State. It is no doubt true, as contended by the learned advocate for the applicant, that whatever Tribunal decides is binding on the subordinate authorities including the Commissioner, but that is because the Tribunal is a superior authority in the hierarchy of administration. Merely for that reason, the decision of the Tribunal cannot be said to have the effect of deciding or settling law for the State. In our opinion, the Tribunal, was therefore, right in holding that the assessed had failed to make out sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal to the Tribunal within the prescribed time.

3. The counsel for appellant has argued that in view of the observation made by Tribunal while dismissing the appeal of Revenue, the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned. It was submitted that appellant did not prefer appeal against the order initially as he was not aware of the legal position. After the orders of Tribunal he became aware of the legal position and therefore, the Tribunal should have condoned the delay.

Page 1719

4. In order to get condensation of delay in filing of an appeal, a party has to show sufficient cause. Sufficient cause means a cause beyond the control of the party e.g a mistake made in good faith in respect of exercise of due care and attention. But where there is want of due care and attention or want of due diligence or sufficient cause the delay cannot be condoned. The appellant was satisfied with the relief granted by CWT (A). After being satisfied with the relief granted by CWT (A), he did not prefer an appeal against the order. However, the Income Tax Department preferred the appeal against the order of CWT (A) before the Tribunal. Even during the arguments before the Tribunal, appellant supported the order of CWT (A) and stated that the order be not reversed. Appellant chose to prefer an appeal against the order of CWT (A) only after the order of the Tribunal making some observation in his favor came. We consider that a party who had been contended with the order and due to that reason has not preferred an appeal, cannot later on, on seeing some observation in a judgment or a finding about the law cannot plead that the delay be condoned of the entire period for which the party had felt contended and not preferred an appeal. The appellant did not prefer an appeal against the order of CWT (A) for about five year in one case for about one and half year in another case. Ignorance of law, appellants neglect or failure to seek legal advice is not sufficient ground for condensation of delay. Ignorance of law is no excuse and Court cannot consider ignorance of law or mistake of law as sufficient cause for condensation of delay. If condensation is allowed on such ground, then there would be no end to the litigation and a party can prefer an appeal against an order at any point of time after finding some observation in a judgment subsequently delivered by a higher forum.

5. We, therefore, consider that the Appellate Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation. We find no force in the appeal and the same is dismissed.