1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR 1. Civil Application No. 7637/2008 In Income Tax Appeal St.No.16191/2008 (Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.) 2.Civil Application No. 7638/2008 in Income Tax Appeal St.No.16193/08. (Senior Bhosale Estate ((HUF) vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) 3. Civil Application No.7639/2008 in Income Tax Appeal St. No.16195/08 (Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) 4. Civil Application No. 7640/2008 in Income Tax Appeal St.No. 16197/08 (Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) 5. Civil Application No. 7641/2008 in Income Tax Appeal St.No.16199/08. (Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) 6. Civil Application No. 7642/2008 in Income Tax Appeal St. No.16201/08 (Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) ----------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. N.S. and S.N. Bhattad, Advocates for the appellants. Mr. A. Parchure, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : A.P.Lavande & Prasanna B. Varale, JJ DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 06.02.2009 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.02.2009 All these applications are being disposed of by 2` common order since the facts involved in all these applications are identical. 2. By these applications, the appellant seeks condonation of delay of 1754 days in filing appeals against the order dated 29.12.2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur by which various appeals were disposed of. 3. The appellant in all these applications is HUF which is under the control of Court of Wards. The assessment proceedings were looked after by the Court of Wards right from the assessment proceedings till passing of the impugned order and the Court of Wards appointed its own counsel for the purpose of attending the proceedings before the authorities under the Income Tax Act. 4. The impugned orders were passed on 29.12.2003 against which the appellant has preferred appeals under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act accompanied by the applications seeking condonation of delay of 1754 days in filing the appeals. 5. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant was not aware of the impugned orders passed on 29.12.2003 and when auction notice was published in a 3` daily newspaper in the month of June 2008 fixing auction of the properties of the appellant, the appellant came to know about the income tax liabilities against the HUF. Thereafter, the appellant moved application before the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Nagpur for staying auction proceedings. 6. The Income Tax Department, for the first time, filed copies of the orders passed by the Tribunal and as such it was on 24.7.2008 that the appellant came to know about passing of the impugned orders and huge liabilities on account of income tax dues. Thereafter they contacted Advocate Rajan Gupta who was appearing on behalf of the Court of Wards and representing the estate of the appellant and after obtaining the necessary documents filed appeals accompanied by applications for condonation of delay on 24.10.2008. 7. Mr. N.S. Bhattad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant was not aware about the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal and it was only in June, 2008 that the appellant came to know about the orders passed by the Tribunal against the appellant which were required to be challenged by filing appeals to this court. The learned counsel further submitted that after the publication of notice regarding the sale of the properties of the appellant 4` in daily newspaper in June, 2008, the appellant took prompt steps to get all the documents necessary to challenge the orders before this Court and the appeals along with the application for condonation of delay were filed promptly. He, therefore, submitted that considering the facts and circumstances, the delay in filing the appeals is liable to be condoned. According to the learned counsel sufficient cause has to be construed liberally. In support of this submission, the learned counsel relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and others (AIR 1987 Supreme Court, 1353). 8. Per contra, Mr. Parchure, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that insofar as the respondent is concerned, the assessee is officer in-charge of the Court of Wards, Nagpur and, therefore, the respondent was not bound to give notice to the appellant in the course of proceedings. According to the learned counsel, the appellant ought to have contacted the Officer In-charge of the Court of Wards, Nagpur and verified about income tax proceedings since the appellant was aware that the proceedings were pending before the authorities under the Income Tax Act. He further submitted that the delay is inordinate and unexplained and, therefore, the applications deserve to be dismissed. 5` 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record we are of the considered opinion that the applications deserve to be dismissed. No doubt the Court of Wards, Nagpur was managing the properties of the appellant. However, the appellant was expected to contact the officer in-charge of the Court of Wards, Nagpur to find out about pending proceedings under the Income Tax Act which appears not to have been done by the appellant. No doubt the term “sufficient cause” has to be liberally construed as held by the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition's case (supra) but fact remains that the facts on record clearly discloses inaction on the part of the appellant in pursuing the proceedings before the authorities under the Income Tax Act. Having regard to the period of delay and on account of inaction on the part of the appellant we find that these are not the fit cases in which inordinate delay of 1754 days in filing appeals deserves to be condoned. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission of Mr. Bhattad that considering the facts and circumstances of the case the limitation should begin to run from the date of knowledge i.e. from June, 2008. 10. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in these applications. Accordingly, all the applications are dismissed. 6` Income Tax Appeal St. Nos. 16191/2008, 16193/2008, 16195/08, 16197/08, 16199/08 & 16201/08 (Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) In view of the dismissal of the civil applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals, the appeals are dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE patle