1984 (5) TMI 1 - HC - Income Tax

Defects, Limitation, Petition Filed In Time, Petition To High Court For Directing Reference, Practice

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in re-filing the petition.
2. Applicability of High Court Rules and Orders.
3. Mandatory vs. directory requirements for filing documents with the petition.
4. Continuation of the original petition upon re-filing.
5. Liberal interpretation of "sufficient cause" in re-filing.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Re-filing the Petition:
The petitioner sought condonation of delay under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for re-filing an income-tax case after it was returned by the registry for removing objections. The delay occurred because the documents (annexures P-1 to P-4) mentioned in the index were not initially enclosed. The petition was re-filed on June 28, 1983, after the documents were found and attached. The petitioner argued that the delay was accidental and due to bona fide reasons beyond their control, supported by an affidavit from the new clerk. The court noted that the explanation for the delay was truthful and frank, and there were no mala fides or contumacious conduct. The court allowed the application for condonation of delay, directing the case to be listed for admission.

2. Applicability of High Court Rules and Orders:
The court examined the applicability of Chapter VII-B of Volume V of the High Court Rules and Orders, which requires petitions under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act to be accompanied by necessary documents. The rules made by the Punjab High Court under clause 27 of the Letters Patent were discussed, noting that these rules were for applications under Sections 66(2) and 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The court suggested that the High Court of Delhi should frame necessary rules for petitions under Section 256(2) of the Act. In the absence of specific rules, the practice and procedure of the court would apply.

3. Mandatory vs. Directory Requirements for Filing Documents:
The court deliberated whether the requirement to file copies of documents along with the petition is mandatory or directory. It concluded that the requirement is directory, not mandatory, as Section 256(2) does not explicitly mandate the filing of copies. The objective is to enable the court to understand the points of law, which can be achieved by filing the orders of the Tribunal alone. The absence of a provision for consequences of non-compliance further supports the directory nature of the requirement.

4. Continuation of the Original Petition upon Re-filing:
The court held that re-filing a petition after removing defects is a continuation of the original petition and does not affect the limitation period. The practice of returning defective petitions for amendment and re-filing within a specified period is common. The court emphasized that re-presentation is not subject to the rigorous tests applied to original filings, and the delay in re-filing should be excused if there is a sufficient cause.

5. Liberal Interpretation of "Sufficient Cause" in Re-filing:
The court adopted a liberal interpretation of the term "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay in re-filing. It highlighted that the expression should receive a very liberal construction, especially when there is no evidence of mala fides or contumacious conduct. The court cited precedents, including Indian Statistical Institute v. Associated Builders and Bikram Dass v. Financial Commissioner, to support its decision. The court concluded that the irregularity in not filing the documents initially should be condoned, allowing the complete petition to be accepted even after some delay.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition for condonation of delay in re-filing, recognizing the procedural irregularity as a directory requirement and emphasizing a liberal approach to "sufficient cause" in such cases. The petition was directed to be listed for admission in due course.

← Previous Next →