2015 (7) TMI 687 - HC - Income Tax

Abatement and substitution of legal representatives - Held that - The Court finds that the request made on behalf of the Appellant for further time to file the application for substitution is not justified. It was categorically recorded in the order dated 19th August 2014 that the details of the LRs had already been made available to learned counsel for the Department. If Mr. Sawhney could not after 4th February 2015 get those details for some reason, there was sufficient time for him to have taken steps since then to obtain them. The details, as recorded in the Court s order, were indeed given to the previous counsel Mr. Madan and ought to have been handed over by him to the Department. If there was any difficulty an application could have been filed seeking clarification. However, no steps whatsoever have been taken. The Court finds the approach of the Appellant in the matter to be casual.

Summary

Issues involved: Failure to file application for substitution of deceased Respondent-Assessee with legal representatives (LRs) despite multiple opportunities.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were admitted, and questions of law were framed for consideration by the Court on 9th October 2007.
2. On 19th August 2014, the Court noted that the Respondent-Assessee had expired, and details of legal representatives were made available to the counsel for the Revenue for necessary application for substitution.
3. Despite having the details of the LRs of the deceased Respondent-Assessee, no application for substitution was filed by the Revenue till 10th November 2014.
4. On 4th February 2015, a new counsel appeared, and the Court granted a final opportunity for filing the application for substitution, setting aside the abatement. The appeals were listed for 9th April 2015.
5. However, as of the latest hearing date, no application was filed by the Revenue for setting aside the abatement and substitution of the deceased Respondent-Assessee with the LRs.
6. The counsel for the Revenue claimed that he did not have the details of the LRs despite efforts to obtain them from various sources.
7. In response, the counsel for the Respondent argued that the details of the LRs were provided long ago, as recorded in the Court's order dated 19th August 2014, and no justification existed for further delay in filing the application for substitution.
8. The Court found the request for more time unjustified, noting that there had been sufficient time to obtain the necessary details since the previous order. The Court criticized the casual approach of the Appellant in the matter.
9. Consequently, the Court refused to grant any further indulgence to the Appellant, and the appeals were held to have abated due to the failure to file the application for substitution despite multiple opportunities.