9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arch and seizure action under Section 132 of the Act was carried out by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax at Bhopal on the Petitioner and its group. The search was carried out at various places including Raipur. (ii) Thereafter on 28 August 2013, a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner. This notice invited objections to the proposed transfer under Section 127(2) of the Act of Petitioner's income tax assessment proceedings (case) from Mumbai to Raipur (in the charge of Commissioner of Income Tax at Bhopal), for proper coordinated investigation. (iii) The Petitioner objected to the proposed transfer by its letter dated 5 September 2013. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai did not accept the Petitioner's objections. Therefore, by order dated 9th December, 2013 under Section 127(2) of the Act, the Petitioner's case with its group companies cases were transferred from Mumbai to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur for the purposes of coordinated investigation. This as the flagship company of the group was being assessed at Raipur. (iv) Consequent to the above, on 31 December 2013, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenges the impugned orders dated 9 December, 2013 and 23 January, 2014. 3 At the very outset, Mr. N.C. Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue raised a preliminary objection to the Petition being entertained in view of the delay/laches coupled with the conduct of the Petitioner in having accepted the impugned order dated 9 December, 2013. In particular, he referred to the aforesaid sequence of events, particularly bearing in mind that the impugned orders dated 9 December 2013 and 23 January 2014 have only been challenged after almost over year in the High Court of Chhattisgarh on 3 March 2015. In the meantime, the Assessing Officer at Raipur had exercised jurisdiction consequent to the transfer of the Petitioner's case and the cases of its group companies by issuing notices under Section 153A of the Act as far back as 31 December, 2013. The Petitioner had also responded to the notices by filing return of income and also responded to the notice issued under Section 142(1) read with Section 153A/143(2) of the Act. 4 Therefore, before considering the merits of the Petitioner's challenge, in view of the above, we called upon the Petitioner to respond to the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotton the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the list. 17. ................... A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent personswho compete with "Kumbhakarna" or for that matter "Rip Van Winkle". In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold." 7 In the present facts, the delay, the Petitioner submits, has been explained in the Petition, filed before the Chhattisgrah High Court on 27 February, 2015. The Chhatisgrah High Court granted an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court (as annexed to the Petition), no prayer to set aside the order dated 23 January 2014 of the CBDT appears to have been made by the Petitioner. The Petitioner had filed the petition in the High Court of Chhatisgarh, when the Assessing Officer has under Section 153A of the Act already exercised jurisdiction vested in him by order dated 9 December 2013. 8 From events as set out above, we observe that the delay on the part of the Petitioner is accompanied with waiver of its right to challenge the impugned orders dated 9 December 2013 and 23 January 2014 as they have acquiesced in them as is evident from its conduct. It must be borne in mind that the order under Section 127(2) of the Act dated 9 December 2013 was a reasoned order, preceded by a show cause notice. Therefore, if the Petitioner were aggrieved by the order dated 9 December, 2013, it ought to have challenged the same immediately before the Assessing Officer at Raipur exercised his jurisdiction consequent to the transfer. In fact, in this case, the Petitioner not only failed to challenge the impugned orders dated 9 December 2013 and 23 January 2014 immediately after they were passed but in fact, let the Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
