TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning CBV, and the judgments that the petitioner has relied upon. One of the judgments as adverted to, in this context, has been passed in the matter of Director of Income Tax vs. Society for Development Alternatives [ 2012 (1) TMI 77 - DELHI HIGH COURT] . We are inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: Respondent no. 2 will dispose of all pending appeal at the earliest, though not later than three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. While adjudicating the appeal, respondent no. 2 will take into account the entirety of the reassessment order dated 31.12.2016 passed in the case of CBV and the judgments on the issue concerning restricted grant. We may note that the source ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment order has extracted only a part of the reassessment order dated 31.12.2016 passed in the case of CBV. 4. Mr Abhishek Jebraj, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that the reassessment order dated 31.12.2016, as it stands today, is intact, although CBV has preferred an appeal qua the same. 5. We may also note that it is not disputed by Mr Abhishek Jebraj, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, that qua the impugned assessment order dated 28.03.2022, a statutory appeal has been preferred, which is pending adjudication. 5.1 We are told that this appeal was lodged in and about February 2019. 6. Mr Jebraj also submits that the main ground on which exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28.03.2022 has taken recourse to a part of the reassessment order dated 31.12.2016 passed in the case of CBV. 11.2 Second, respondent no. 2, with whom the statutory appeal lies, has not disposed of the appeal, although nearly four and a half years have elapsed. 12. The second grievance answers, to our minds, the objection raised by Mr Maratha with regard to delay and laches. In our opinion, the petitioner in this case was entitled to move the court to nudge respondent no. 2 in the right direction. 13. Insofar as the first aspect is concerned, in our opinion, the petitioner is entitled to seek a direction that while disposing of the appeal, respondent no. 2 should consider the entirety of the reassessment order dated 31.12.2016 pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
