TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 968X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equent admission, would not be ground enough to condone the delay in the backdrop of the conscious decision having been taken not to file an appeal in the case of respondent assessee. Therefore, following the test laid down by us in the "Somerset Place Cooperative Housing Society Ltd." (2015 (2) TMI 507 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ), where a conscious decision has been taken not to prefer an appeal, the subsequent event such as the decision of the Court of law would not entitle a party to assail the order consequent to the aforesaid decision and seek the condonation of delay. - Notice of Motion No. 1103 of 2013, Income Tax Appeal (Lodg.) No. 1180 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 11-9-2015 - M. S. Sanklecha And G. S. Kulkarni, JJ. For the Appellant : M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preparation of draft memo of appeal on 11th July,2013. x. Draft Appeal received from the Counsel 15th July,2013. xi. Appeal was filed on ______ July,2013. In case of M/s.Shiv Roadways for A.Y.200708 where similar facts are involved, the department has already filed appeal to Hon'ble Court vide Appeal ITAX No.417/2013. Hence, to maintain consistency of action, the earlier decision of not filing appeal is revisited. (emphasis supplied) As noted hereinabove, the affidavit states that a conscious decision was taken earlier by the revenue not to file an appeal from the order dated 8 June 2012 in the case of respondentassessee. Further it states that the above decision was reversed in view of the fact that the Depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision in Piyush Mehta's case has been accepted by the Revenue, then there was sufficient reason for the Commissioner to take a decision of not filing an appeal against the impugned order. 6. On the other hand, if appeal had been filed in the case of Shri.Piyush C. Mehta (supra) , then there must have been some good reason not to file an appeal in this case. If not, responsibility is not being fixed on the person responsible for taking decision adverse to the interest of the revenue. 7. The affidavit in support does not set out the reasons why the Revenue decided to file an appeal in the case of M/s. Shiv Roadways in respect of the Assessment Year 2007-08 particularly when a conscious decision was taken on the same issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
