9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , subject to costs of Rs. 10,000 - Notices of Motion are allowed - 1334, 3231, 1415, 1433, 1429 OF 2010 - - - Dated:- 18-4-2011 - J.P. DEVADHAR, A.A. SAYED, JJ. Mr. D.J. Khambata, A.S.G. with Ms Suchitra Kamble for the Appellant. Mr. Vipul Joshi a/w Mr. Sameer G. Dalal for the Respondent. JUDGMENT (PER A.A.SAYED, J.) 1. The above notices of motion have been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the Income Tax Appeals. 2. In Notice of Motion No. 2946 of 2010 in Appeal No. 1334 of 2010, there is delay of 1137 days in filing the Appeal. In Notice of Motion No. 2948 of 2010 in Appeal No. 323 of 2010, there is delay of 1543 days in filing the Appeal. In Notice of Motion No. 2949 of 2010 in Appeal No. 1415 of 2010, there is delay of 1000 days in filing the Appeal. In Notice of Motion No. 2950 of 2010 in Appeal No.1433 of 2010, there is delay of 1000 days in filing the Appeal. In Notice of Motion No. 2951 of 2010 in Appeal No. 1429 of 2010, there is delay of 1330 days in filing the Appeal. Though the delay ranges from 1000 to 1543 days, the grounds for condonation of delay in filing the Appeals is more or less similar, as such the above Notices of Mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rk relating to filing of the appeals of the Income Tax Department in this Court was decentralized by the Ministry of law with effect from 1st December, 2005 to the Department and it took few months time in receiving back the dockets from the Advocates concerned during the post decentralization period. It is also stated in the affidavits that after scrutiny report was received in the office of CIT-5, Mumbai, the approval of the CIT was obtained for filing of the appeals under section 260A of Income Tax Act and the file was sent to CCIT-III, Mumbai. CCIT-III thereafter granted approval for filing appeals. The appeal proposals were thereafter handed over to the Central Government Advocates, Ministry of Law by the Deputy CIT-5 (1), Mumbai for drafting the appeals. However, in view of decentralization by the Ministry of Law with effect from 1st December, 2005 to the Department, it took few months time in receiving back the dockets from the Advocates concerned during the post decentralization period. It is further stated in the affidavits that since the Counsel on the Panel were neither drafting the appeals to be filed in time nor representing the cases properly it was proposed to change ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the Department side after handing over the said file to the Central Government Advocate for filing the appeals. It is pointed out that the decentralization took place actually on 1-12-2005 and no reason has been set out about the delay prior thereto. It is stated that the same Advocate was again assigned the work of filing of the Appeals. In replies filed in all the Notices of motion it is asserted that no sufficient cause for condonation of delay has been made out. It is averred that right has been created in favour of the assessees after end of the limitation period and the respondent assessees would suffer prejudice if the delay is condoned. 8. Today, supplementary affidavits in support of the notices of motion have been tendered in Court on behalf of the Department annexing thereto copies of the three Action Taken Reports. Learned ASG Mr. Khambata appearing in Notice of Motion No. 2964 of 2010, reiterated the assertions made in the affidavits filed on behalf of the Department. He submitted though there has been considerable delay in filing the Appeals, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, there was sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. The learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a delay of more than 1000 days to 1543 days in filing the Appeals and no proper explanation has been offered for the delay and there was total negligence and callousness on the part of the officers of the Department. It is submitted that a right had accrued in favour of the respondents upon the expiry of the limitation period and therefore the delay ought not to be condoned. It is submitted that merely because the appeals are filed on behalf of Department who may enjoy certain latitude in certain cases, would not mean even in the cases of inordinate delay in filing the appeals, the same ought to be condoned. It is submitted that at every stage, there is delay and the department and its officers have been completely negligent in the matter. It is therefore urged that the notices of motion be dismissed with costs. The following judgments are cited on behalf of the respondents in support of their contentions : 1 Ornate Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, (2009) 312 ITR 193 (Bom.). 2. Commissioner of Income Tax Others Vs. Reliance Capital Ltd. Others, (2009) 225 CTR (Bom.) 275. 3. Union of India Vs. Tata Yodogawa Limited, 1988 (38) E.L.T. 339 (S.C.). 4. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccordingly, new panel of Counsel was formed in July, 2008. It is further noticed that the papers for drafting of the appeal matters were handedover to the Counsel before the decentralization took place and that there was delay on the part of the Counsel also in filing the appeals and that after de centralization the Counsel were required to be appointed again. We hope that the steps taken due to the intervention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court will ensure that henceforth the appeals are filed in time. Perusal of the Action Taken Reports, show that as per the latest statistics, during the A.Y. 2009-10 about 91% of the Appeals were filed in time. 12. In these circumstances though the delay is substantial and the explanation given is not entirely satisfactory and strictly speaking would not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeals, in our opinion, in the interest of justice, it would be just and proper to condone the delay subject to payment of costs. 13. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the above appeals, subject to costs of Rs. 10,000/- in each of the above Appeals to be paid by the Department to the respective respondent-assessees wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
