- (1.) This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The delay has been sought to be explained in the manner stated in paragraph 6 of the application. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the delay has been sufficiently explained and he had taken us through the statements made in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 and various paragraphs in the application and prayed that the delay be condoned.
(2.) Mr. Bajoria, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, has pointed out that there is delay of about 458 days and that the delay has not been properly explained and the statements made in paragraph 6 do not seem to be a sufficient explanation for condoning the delay. He also pointed out that an officer of the rank of an inspector in the office of the Commissioner of Income-tax has affirmed the affidavit. No officer of responsible rank has taken the responsibility of the statements made in the application. Mr. Bajoria had drawn our attention to this case and submits that almost in every case there is an application for condonation of delay. The delays range sometime up to 400/500 days or more. He also pointed out that the manner in which the applications are being filed, appears to have been written in a format filling up the dates and it also discloses the movement of files from one Department to the other.
(3.) Mr. Bajoria also points out that for this purpose the cost is borne out of the public exchequer. For no apparent reasons the things have been taken for granted and no one takes the responsibility. He also points out that this delays the process and ultimately the blame is thrown at the door of the courts. He also criticises the policy of taking away the jurisdiction of the High Court and introducing bills for creating Tribunals for dealing with income-tax matters on the ground that the delays in the High Court in disposing of income-tax matters being the principal reason is wholly a wrong conception. It is the Department itself which is responsible for the delay not the courts. The Legislature had amended the law from time to time in order to cut short the period and expedite the process and avoid delay. But such attempt of the Legislature has not been reflected in the attitude of the Department who themselves are responsible for the delay. This also cuts in two ways. Apart from the appeal being decided directly, the application for condonation of delay consumes a considerable time and also prevents the court from dealing with appeals straightaway and keeps the court busy with applications for condonation of delay, which can easily be avoided by the Department. According to him, at the one hand the Department itself is responsible for the delay and committing the delay and then throwing the blame on the courts for the delay being oblivious of the fact that the Department itself was responsible for the delay and is unnecessarily keeping the court busy with applications for condonation of delay.;