9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1733 - SC - Income TaxCondonation of delay - delay of 596 days - Held that - despite delayed filing of appeal the petitioners (revenue) have given a totally misleading statement before this Court. - We are shocked that the Union of India through the Commissioner of Income Tax has taken the matter so casually. Under the circumstances we dismiss the petition with costs of 10 lacs to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from today. The amount be utilized for juvenile justice issues.
Issues: Delay in filing petition, Misleading statement about pending matter, Dismissal of petition with costs
The Supreme Court of India heard a petition filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad, seeking special leave. The Court noted a significant delay of 596 days in filing the petition, with an unsatisfactory explanation provided for the delay. Additionally, the petition falsely claimed that a similar matter, C.A. No. 7096/2012, was pending before the Court, whereas it had already been decided on 27.09.2012. The Court expressed shock at the casual approach taken by the Union of India through the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court emphasized the seriousness of the inadequate explanation for the substantial delay in filing the petition and the misleading statement regarding the pending matter. Consequently, the Court decided to dismiss the petition and imposed a cost of ?10 lakhs on the petitioners. The Court directed the amount to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks for utilization in juvenile justice issues. The Court scheduled a compliance hearing after the specified period for further action. In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment highlighted the importance of timely filings and accurate representations before the Court. The dismissal of the petition with costs underscored the Court's commitment to upholding procedural integrity and penalizing misleading conduct. The directive to allocate the imposed costs towards juvenile justice issues demonstrated the Court's social responsibility and commitment to utilizing resources for the betterment of society.
|
