Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 864 - AT - Income TaxPetition of the revenue seeking condonation of delay - grounds raised by the DCIT that he was preoccupied in some sensitive matters pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court having substantial revenue implications - Held that:- First of all, from a bare perusal of the purported affidavit filed by the Ld. DCIT, it is noted that the same is not in accordance with the provisions of law, in as much as, it suffers from various infirmities which cannot be reckoned as an affidavit at all. An ‘affidavit’ contains averments of facts which has been deposed to by the deponent who is under oath to correctly state the facts and such an averment on oath is confined to such facts as the deponent is able to prove the facts and must substantiate the grounds stated thereof. Thus, if a person chooses to rely on an affidavit for relying on certain facts, then such an affidavit should clearly express how much is the statement based on the deponent’s knowledge and how much is the statement of his belief and the grounds or belief must be stated with sufficient particularity so that the courts can safely act upon the deponent’s belief. From the reading of the aforementioned affidavit of para numbers 1 to 6, it can be seen that, there is only narration of facts which are already on record. Another fallacy which is notable in the aforesaid affidavit is that, there is no identification of the deponent by a duly authorised person. The person making an affidavit has to be identified by the Court, or Magistrate, or Officer of court, or a Notary who has been authorised under the ‘Notaries Act’; and at the foot of the affidavit the name and description of the person by whom identification is made as well as time and place of identification has to be categorically mentioned. Here in this case there is a seal of a Notary, “Mr. Azad Kumar, Advocate” who has simply mentioned “attested” and date has been marked as 12th April, 2016. There is no identification of the deponent by the notary as to on what basis he has identified the deponent. In any case the reasons given for condonation of delay cannot be held to be sufficient and reasonable cause for condonation of delay because it is too vague and general. A high ranking Government officer discharging public duty is always preoccupied with some important work or other. It does not mean dereliction of other statutory and governmental duties. If ld. DCIT was actually preoccupied in some very important assignment, then he has to clearly specify as to what was the nature of such preoccupation that it was impossible for him to take steps for filing of the Cross Objection in time. Merely mentioning that he was preoccupied with some sensitive case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court without specifying the nature of the case and whether during that period he was unable to perform/discharge his other functions/duties, we are unable to accept such kind of extremely vague reasons. - Decided against revenue
|