TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the same on merits in accordant with law after giving due opportunity to the petitioner firm of being heard – in favour of assessee. - W.P.(C) 7892/2009 - - - Dated:- 23-4-2012 - MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA, MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR, JJ. For Appellant: Ms. Vibha Mahajan Seth, Adv. For Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. R.V. EASWAR, J.: M/s Dewan Chand Dholan Dass Co., a partnership firm, has filed the present writ petition through its partners seeking the issue of writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-VII, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as CIT ) on 17.9.2007 dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner firm under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing the revision petition. Several reasons were advanced by the petitioner-firm in the application for condonation of the delay in filing the revision petition. It was pleaded by the petitioner-firm that the CIT should condone the delay in filing the revision petition and decide the correctness of the best judgment assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on merits. It would appear that written submissions were also filed before the CIT on the merits of the best judgment assessment. 4. By the impugned order dated 17.9.2007, the CIT held that the assessment order was delivered to the authorized representative of the petitioner firm on 9th March, 2004 and even allowing for the pendency of litigation between the partners before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing on 31.8.2006. We have examined the contention and also the other reasons advanced on behalf of the petitioner for the delay. We find that the partners of the petitioner firm have revoked the authority of the tax consultant by a letter filed before the CIT on 25.5.2007 and thereafter on 26.6.2007, Sh. Narender Kumar, son of one of the partners was authorized to look after and deal with the case. It appears that a revised representation was also filed before the CIT. Earlier the CIT had pointed out to the erstwhile authorized representative of the petitioner on 12.2.2007 that the revision petition was barred by limitation and that a petition for condonation of the delay should be filed. It also appears that even the fee for filing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revision petition before the CIT. 6. It is further seen that in the year 2001, a suit for partition of the family properties had been field and on 17.5.2001 a commissioner was appointed to take custody of the books of account. The keys remained with the court commissioner and, therefore, the petitioner firm did not have access to the books of account so that they could be produced before the Assessing Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings. The return was filed on 30th October, 2000 but the litigation between the partners started in 2001. Thereafter, the petitioner firm had to face a suit from Standard Chartered Bank in respect of a property in Model Town which was mortgaged with them. On 27.1.2003, the civil court had direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. On the question relating to condonation of delay, in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji and Ors. [AIR 1987 SC 1353], the Supreme Court observed that as under:- 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng is clear that the courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal drive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bone fide can be imputed to the defaulting party. 10. Applying the above decisions, we are satisfied that there existed reasonable cause for the delay in filing the revision petition before the CIT under Section 264 of the Act. We condone the delay in filing the revision petition. The order passed by the CIT on 17.9.2007 refusing the condone the delay and adjudicate upon the merits of the revision petition, is hereby quashed and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
