2010 (4) TMI 761 - HC - Income Tax

Restoring the writ petition - It appears from the application that in the said writ petition challenge was to the notice dated March 27, 1974 for the assessment year 1969-70 under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Directions for affidavits were also issued, it was recorded that the respondents would be at liberty to continue and conclude the reassessment proceedings - After the application for reconstruction being C. A. N. No. 2144 of 2009 was moved on May 6, 2009 the petitioners were directed to serve copies of the application on the respondents as well as on the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Union of India So far as the prayer for fresh affidavit by the petitioners is concerned, the submission is court should not allow a cause of action which was arose 32 years back - The petitioners have tried to plead that the trustees, who had filed the writ petition, subsequently ceased to be trustees by virtue of death, resignation or otherwise - It appears from the application that in January, 2008 the petitioners came to know that the erstwhile advocate on record had expired on August 20, 2007 - Therefore, since delay of about 32 years has not been explained at all for moving the application belatedly and no sufficient cause has been made out for the restoration of the petition being C. R. No. 3100 (W) of 1974, the application for registration is dismissed - Hence, no order is passed on the application for reconstruction being C. A. N. No. 2414 of 2009 and the same is, thus, disposed of

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for restoration of a writ petition filed in 1974.
2. Delay in moving the restoration application.
3. Justification for the delay and negligence on the part of the petitioners.
4. Lack of sufficient cause for restoration based on the explanations provided.
5. Prayer for filing a fresh affidavit and direction upon the Revenue.
6. Assessment of costs to be paid to respondent No. 3.

Issue 1: Application for restoration of a writ petition filed in 1974
The petitioners sought restoration of a writ petition filed in 1974 challenging an income tax notice. The matter involved reconstructing records and addressing delays in the legal process.

Issue 2: Delay in moving the restoration application
The delay in moving the restoration application was acknowledged by the petitioners' advocate. The delay was attributed to communication gaps between the petitioners and their former advocate, leading to negligence in pursuing the case.

Issue 3: Justification for the delay and negligence on the part of the petitioners
The petitioners attempted to justify the delay by explaining changes in trustees, communication issues with the former advocate, and delays in appointing a new advocate. However, the court found the explanations insufficient to warrant restoration after a 32-year delay.

Issue 4: Lack of sufficient cause for restoration based on the explanations provided
Despite efforts to explain the delay and blame the former advocate, the court deemed the reasons inadequate for restoring the writ petition. The court highlighted the lack of evidence supporting the claims made by the petitioners.

Issue 5: Prayer for filing a fresh affidavit and direction upon the Revenue
The petitioners requested leave to file a fresh affidavit directing the Revenue to communicate the assessment order. However, the court declined this request due to the dismissal of the restoration application.

Issue 6: Assessment of costs to be paid to respondent No. 3
The court ordered the petitioners to pay costs to respondent No. 3, the Revenue, as they were deemed entitled to costs in the given circumstances. The costs were assessed at Rs. 1,700 to be paid by the petitioners.

This judgment by the High Court of Calcutta involved the denial of an application for the restoration of a writ petition filed in 1974 due to significant delays and lack of sufficient cause presented by the petitioners. The court found the explanations provided for the delay unsatisfactory, emphasizing the need for timely legal actions and proper documentation to support claims. Additionally, the court declined the prayer for filing a fresh affidavit and directed the petitioners to pay costs to the Revenue. The judgment underscores the importance of diligence and adherence to legal procedures in seeking restoration of legal matters.