A.S. Garg, J. - (1.) CRL . Misc. filed today in Court along with its Annexures is taken on record.
(2.) THE delay always prevents certain events which have to take place in due course of law. Therefore, "delay" is always considered to be an obstruction in the natural course of events. The delay prevents the official machinery to perform certain functions in time. It is really necessary that it becomes imperative that "delay" must be avoided and if one commits a delay in coming to the certain Forum where one person is duty bound to reach in time and does not reach and such an act of delay may bring certain penalty to such a person ? But at the same time, the mere delay without having any consideration of the reasons for such a delay may at be be against the principles of natural justice and fair play. Every person has a right of being heard as to why the delay has occurred. If one is able to justify the delay the sole fact that certain law, rules and regulations fix time limit but one is able to explain certain limit so crossed under some compelling circumstances, the delay must be condoned. The law does not put any obstacle in condoning the delay if such condonation of delay does not defeat the ends of justice. In the case in hand the petitioner was supposed to file the Income Tax Return by 31.7.1984 but he could not do so and filed the same on 14.7.1986 by a delay of about 231 days. However, there was no concealment in the income shown and the income was duly assessed. The petitioner was neither imposed any penalty nor was charged with any lapse on his part in showing the correct income etc. However, he claimed that because of the communal riots in Delhi, the Income Tax Return could not be prepared. The business and affairs of the petitioner were in total disarray to the extent that the lives of the people were lost and were also in danger. Therefore, such a delay could not be with any motive either to manipulate the accounts or to gain time to commit any other irregularity. There is no order of the Income tax officer concerned that such a delay was motivated. In the absence of such an observation taken together with the explanation that the circumstances were as aforesaid, the prosecution of the petitioner does not appear to be justified in law. Such Income Tax Return must be deemed to have been filed in time. In such a case the ends of justice would be achieved if such a delay had been condoned by the department itself. Hence the Crl. Misc. is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner are quashed as the proceedings against the petitioner would be unjust and unconstitutional.
(3.) PETITION allowed.;