2025 (3) TMI 1386 - HC - Income Tax

Interim Application seeks restoration of Writ Petition which was dismissed for non- prosecution - This application has been filed after delay of 16 months and 9 days so condonation is applied for. Respondent/Revenue states that the delay is in fact 19 months not just 16 months and 9 days. HELD THAT - In such matters the length of the delay is one consideration but the cost shown is crucial. If the cost shown is satisfactory then subject no doubt to payment of sufficient cost the delay can be condoned. In Paragraphs 6 and 7 the Applicant has explained the circumstances in which the matter was missed and no sufficient steps were taken. An apology is also being tendered. There is nothing on record to suggest any lack of bonafide. Therefore considering the cost shown the delay can be condoned and the Petition can be restored. By a separate order we have restored this Petition which was earlier dismissed for non-prosecution - This Petition challenges the assessment order dated 25 March 2022 - Applicant seeks leave to withdraw this Petition with the liberty to file an Appeal against the impugned order - HELD THAT - This Petition was instituted on 26 April 2022 i.e. within the limitation period prescribed for instituting an Appeal. This Court had also granted interim protection to the Petitioner. The Petition was being pursued bona fide. Therefore if as stated Petitioner that the Appeal is instituted within four weeks from today then the Appellate Authority should give due consideration to the fact that this Petition was instituted on 26 April 2022 and has been pending in this Court until today. The Petitioner was bona fide in pursuing this Petition because it alleged certain breaches of principles of natural justice. Accordingly leave is granted and this Petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the Petitioner to pursue the Appeal remedy.

Summary

**Summary of Judgement: Bombay High Court****Case:** Interim Application (L) No. 1390 of 2025 and Writ Petition (L) No. 13621 of 2022**Judges:** M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.**Parties:**- **Applicant:** Represented by Mr. Bharat Raichandani with Bhagirathi Sahu- **Respondent/Revenue:** Represented by Mr. Arjun Gupta**Key Legal Proceedings:**1. **Interim Application:** - The Applicant sought restoration of Writ Petition (L) No. 13621 of 2022, previously dismissed for non-prosecution. - The application for restoration was filed after a delay of 16 months and 9 days, contested by the Respondent as being 19 months. - The Court emphasized that the "length of the delay is one consideration, but the cost shown is crucial." Upon satisfactory explanation and apology from the Applicant, the Court condoned the delay and restored the Petition.2. **Writ Petition (L) No. 13621 of 2022:** - The Petition challenged an assessment order dated 25 March 2022. - Mr. Raichandani, on instructions, sought to withdraw the Petition with liberty to file an Appeal. - The Court acknowledged that the Petition was filed within the limitation period and had interim protection, indicating bona fide pursuit. - The Court granted leave to withdraw the Petition, allowing the Petitioner to pursue an Appeal. It instructed the Appellate Authority to consider the Petition's filing date and its bona fide nature due to alleged breaches of natural justice.**Conclusion:**- The Petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty granted for an Appeal. All parties' contentions remain open, and no costs were awarded.