2017 (8) TMI 1066 - HC - Income Tax

Review petition - succeed to the assets of the deceased - Held that - In the present case, the understanding of the Revenue official, that there was an alleged dispute, would not be an acceptable cause in law. However, the proposed respondents are not prejudiced. We are not expressing any opinion on the maintainability of the Review Petition or on its merits. Equally, we are not expressing any opinion about the entitlement of the proposed respondents to succeed to the assets of the deceased. These are not relevant matters for deciding the Chamber Summons. We have before us a Review Petition, and its pendency will not assist or help either. It wold be better if the same is disposed of by granting full opportunity to the parties. In the larger interest of justice, we condone the delay, but by imposing conditions. We direct the Review Petitioner to pay costs to the proposed Respondents quantified at ₹ 25,000/, which shall be paid as expeditiously as possible and within a period of four weeks from today. Thereafter, steps be taken to remove all office objections by carrying out the requisite amendments to the memo of the Review Petition. We grant time of six weeks for above purposes. In the event no steps are taken within the stipulated period, the Review Petition will stand dismissed without any adjudication on merits. When the Review petitioner takes steps to amend the memo of the Review Petition, it shall include the name of the widow Mrs. Dimple Khanna and thereafter, the names of the proposed respondents, as set out in the schedule. The memo of the Review Petition shall be amended accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in moving the application for substitution of deceased respondent's name with heirs and legal representatives in a Review Petition.

Analysis:
The Chamber Summons sought to condone a delay of 1103 days in substituting the name of the deceased respondent with that of the heirs and legal representatives in a Review Petition. The opposition from proposed respondents claimed that there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay. They argued that the delay was unexplained, especially considering the deceased was a well-known figure in the cinema industry, and his death was widely publicized. The opposition contended that the alleged dispute over the estate succession did not justify proceeding with the Review Petition by substituting the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased.

The High Court referenced the settled principle by the Supreme Court that unless there is deliberate wrongdoing, negligence, or mala fides, an opportunity should be granted to substitute the heirs and legal representatives of a deceased respondent in legal proceedings. The Court acknowledged the delay but noted that the Department filed an appeal against a Tribunal order long before the Review Petition, and the discovery of the respondent's death occurred during the Review Petition process, prompting the need for substitution.

The Court rejected the argument that a dispute over estate succession should hinder the substitution process, emphasizing that such delays and procedural issues within government departments should not prejudice public interest or revenue matters. The Court highlighted the importance of ensuring justice and granting opportunities to parties, ultimately deciding to condone the delay but imposing costs on the Review Petitioner and setting a deadline for necessary actions. The Court directed the Review Petitioner to pay costs to the proposed Respondents and make amendments to the Review Petition within a specified timeframe, warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the Review Petition without further consideration.

In conclusion, the High Court granted the Chamber Summons, allowing the Review Petition to proceed with the necessary amendments and payments imposed as conditions. The Court emphasized the importance of justice and procedural compliance while balancing the interests of all parties involved.