9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The petitioner filed an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking condonation of delay in filing an application to refer three questions of law to the Appellate Tribunal. The initial application was filed on May 12, 1980, by the standing counsel for the Income-tax Department, but it faced objections from the registry, leading to multiple returns and refilings by different counsels. The delays were attributed to changes in Inspecting Assistant Commissioners and Income-tax Officers, causing administrative disruptions. The petitioner explained that the delays were beyond their control due to the changes in officials handling the matter. The court directed the petitioner's counsel to file a detailed affidavit to explain the delays caused by the repeated objections and refilings. The supplementary affidavit highlighted the sequence of events, including objections raised by the registry and subsequent refilings by different counsels. The delays were primarily due to defects in the petition, which were rectified each time before refiling. The petitioner emphasized that the delays were not intentional but a result of administrative changes within the department. The court referred to relevant case laws, including CIT v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and Kwality Restaurant and Ice Cream Co. v. CIT, to establish principles regarding the condonation of delay in such matters. It noted that the re-presentation of a petition is a continuation of the original petition and does not affect the limitation period for filing. The court also highlighted that plausible explanations for delays should be accepted, and parties should not be penalized for the defaults of their agents or counsels. Ultimately, the court found the explanation provided by the petitioner regarding the delays to be satisfactory. It concluded that the delays were justified due to the changes in officials handling the case and the administrative hurdles faced during the refiling process. As a result, the court allowed the application for condonation of delay and granted the relief sought by the petitioner.
|
