Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-XIX Versus M/s Golden Corporation Services

2015 (5) TMI 793 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Condonation of delay - Held that:- In the case before us a final opinion on the question is not essential because the appeal, in this case filed in the year 2010, was a still born appeal because it was barred by limitation. The appellant did not even serve a copy of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The matter appeared before us as indicated earlier on 9th April, 2015. Till then no steps were taken. The appellant as a matter of fact woke up after Mr. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

prescribed period of limitation. There is as such no reason why the delay should be condoned. The application for condonation of delay is therefore dismissed. - Decided against assesse. - ITA No. 29 of 2010, GA No. 200 of 2010 - Dated:- 8-5-2015 - Girish Chandra Gupta And Arindam Sinha,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr P Dudhoria, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr Avra Mazumder, Adv. ORDER The Court : The subject matter of challenge in the appeal is a judgment and order dated 12th June, 2009 pertaining t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ause it does not appear that anyone appeared on behalf of the appellant. The appellant admittedly did not take any step. There is no Affidavit-of-Service before us to show that any service was sought to be effected soon after the appeal along with application for condonation of delay was filed. If nothing was sought to be served, the acknowledgement card could not have been awaited. The matter thereafter was listed on 9th April, 2015 when no one appeared for the appellant. The learned Advocate f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or condonation of delay was served. He submitted that, in any event, the appeal is not maintainable because the tax effect is less than ₹ 10 lacs. He in support of his submission also relied on a judgment in the case of CIT vs. Ranka and Ranka, reported in (2013) 352 ITR 0121. He also cited a Division Bench judgment dated 3rd May, 2011 of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Ceramic Decorator (P) Ltd. passed in ITAT No. 83 of 2011, wherein the following views were taken:- "At the very ou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Act. We, thus, dismiss the appeal on that ground alone." Mr. P. Dudhoria, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-revenue submitted that Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shambhubhai Mahadev Ahir (Tax Appeal No.2213 of 2010 dated 12th September, 2012) opined that the earlier view expressed by a Division Bench of Gujrat High Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Durgaprosad Khatod holding that the instructions of 2011 would also apply to pending appeals required reconsideration and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pending appeals. Any other meaning, according to him, would be contrary to the object sought to be achieved. He in support of his submission drew our attention to the national policy incorporated in the order of the Karnataka High Court. From the National Policy, it appears that the revenue has been instructed not to press matters where the stakes are not high. The policy also contemplates withdrawal of pending cases, which reads as follows:- "All pending cases involving the Government has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t of the fact that the appeal was competent on the day it was presented. Mr. M.P. Agarwal, learned Advocate in the panel of the revenue also endorsed the views of Mr. Khaitan. We have considered the rival submissions. It is well settled that subsequent events can be taken note of by the Court both for the purpose of doing justice between the parties and for the purpose of shortening the litigation. Reference, in this regard, may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pasupuleti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rinciple that procedure is the handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial process. If a fact arising after the lis has come to court and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the Tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or render inept the decreetal remedy. Equity justifies bending the rules of procedure, where no specific provision or fair play is violated, with a view to promote substa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the current realities, the court can, and in many cases must, take cautious cognizance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed. On both occasions the High Court, in revision, correctly took this view. The later recovery of another accommodation by the landlord, during pendency of the cas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r has to be applied prospectively. The aforesaid contention appears to have been accepted by the Apex Court expressly or impliedly by the following views appearing in paragraph-15 of the judgment which read as follows:- "15. In the instant case, the assessee had filed a classification list effective from 1-3-1993, classifying the single panel circuit-breakers under Heading 85.35 and claiming concessional rate of duty at 5% under Notification No. 52/93 dated 28.2.1993. The said classificatio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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