New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (3) TMI 614 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2015 (3) TMI 614 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - TMI - Condonation of delay - delay of 1845 days in taking out the Notice of motion - Held that:- Mr.Gupta the learned counsel for the Revenue emphasized that there was a genuine mistake on the the part of the revenue in not having kept them abreast with the developments after filing of the appeal. It is accepted that the mistake should not have happened. We do find that there was an unintentional lapse on the part of the revenue as the lapse could have been .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

> It in view of revenue's mistake the delay of 1845 days in taking out the present motion be condoned and we also set aside the order dated 7.11.2009 and restore the Appeal to the file of this Court. However, a mistake on the part of the revenue would have been averted if appropriate care had been taken by them. Thus, the lack of care which led to a mistake of 1845 days cannot be without costs. Therefore, the delay is condoned subject to the Appellant-revenue paying a cost of ₹ 20,000 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ich had been dismissed by an order of this Court dated 7.11.2009. The order dated 7.11.2009 of this Court was a conditional order giving time to the revenue to remove objections within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order failing which the Appeal would stand dismissed. However, as the Notice of motion has been taken out belatedly on 21.1.2015 a condonation of a delay of 1845 days in taking out the Notice of motion is also sought. 2. The Affidavit in support of the Notice of motion .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

also did not find the conditional order dated 7.11.2009 loaded on the website of this Court all of which cumulatively led the Appellant to believe that its Appeal for A.Y. 2004-05 was still pending in this Court awaiting its admission. Mr.Vimal Gupta the learned senior counsel for the revenue states that for Assessment years 2001-02, 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2006-07 a common order dated 22.2.2012 was passed by the Tribunal allowing the assessee's appeal and dismissing the department's appea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sment years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 were listed on board of this Court for admission that the appellant realized that the Appeal for Assessment year 2004-05 was not listed because, the same had already been dismissed. Immediately, thereafter the appellant took out the present Notice of motion and sought condonation of delay essentially on the ground that at all times till 12.1.2015 they bonafide believed that the appeal for Assessment year 2004-05 was pending before this Court. 3. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e appellant should have been put on notice with regard to the appeal for Assessment year 2004-05 being dismissed when they filed Appeals for Assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 in July, 2012. This was for the reason that the common order of the Tribunal for the above assessment years specifically follows the order of the Tribunal for Assessment year 2004-05. Mr.Thakkar states that contention of the appellant smacks of gross negligence as no necessary inquiries were made about the facts of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

smissed on 7.11.2009 should have been known to the appellant as it was a Court working Saturday and the reason that the Income Tax Officer assigned to Court was not present in Court as the Income Tax Department is closed on Saturday is preposterous. It is the responsibility of the Revenue's representative to be present and instruct their counsel representing them even on a Saturday which otherwise is a nonworking day for the Income Tax Department. In case the revenue fails to be present in C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ments after filing of the appeal. It is accepted that the mistake should not have happened. We do find that there was an unintentional lapse on the part of the revenue as the lapse could have been corrected much earlier when the appeal for A.Y.2001-02, 20030-04, 2005-06, 2006-07 was filed in 2012. In fact, there was no earthly reason for the revenue not to pursue the present appeal when on the same issue appeals are filed from subsequent order of the Tribunal to this Court and the same are pendi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d that even if the revenue had removed the objections within the prescribed period as provided in the order dated 7.11.2009 and the appeals were admitted it would as of today still awaiting its final disposal in this Court. Thus, this condonation of delay for considering the appeal for admission does not by itself cause any prejudice to the appellant as this costs on account of interest would be a likely situation even if in the event of the appeal being not dismissed by order dated 7.11.2009. 8 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version