9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 864X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the deponent’s belief. From the reading of the aforementioned affidavit of para numbers 1 to 6, it can be seen that, there is only narration of facts which are already on record. Another fallacy which is notable in the aforesaid affidavit is that, there is no identification of the deponent by a duly authorised person. The person making an affidavit has to be identified by the Court, or Magistrate, or Officer of court, or a Notary who has been authorised under the ‘Notaries Act’; and at the foot of the affidavit the name and description of the person by whom identification is made as well as time and place of identification has to be categorically mentioned. Here in this case there is a seal of a Notary, “Mr. Azad Kumar, Advocate” who has simply mentioned “attested” and date has been marked as 12th April, 2016. There is no identification of the deponent by the notary as to on what basis he has identified the deponent. In any case the reasons given for condonation of delay cannot be held to be sufficient and reasonable cause for condonation of delay because it is too vague and general. A high ranking Government officer discharging public duty is always preoccupied with some imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee, for want of strict non-availability of jurisdiction with this Hon'ble Tribunal, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. 2. At the outset, the Cross Objections filed by the revenue is barred by limitation in terms of section 253(4),as there is a delay of 169 days as per the statutory time limit for filing the cross objection. The Dy.CIT, Circle 13(1), New Delhi (herein refer to as DCIT), along with the said Cross Objection has filed detailed reasons for grounds taken in the cross objection as well as requested for condonation of delay on the following ground:- That the Respondent has been, for good and sufficient reasons, extremely preoccupied with sensitive cases being dealt with by him and where there is ding and ongoing litigation up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court having substantial revenue implications, and was unable to move the present Cross Objections in the instant appeal filed by the assessee within the time permitted u/s 253(4) of the Act and humbly prays for the condonation of the delay by this Hon'ble Tribunal in filing the present Cross Objections in the appeal filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter of Mrs. New Delhi Television Limited for the Assessment Year 2009-10. Affidavit for Condonation of Delay in filing the Cross Objections against ITA No. 1212/Del/2014 filed by M/s. New Delhi Television Limited against Assessment Order passed by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 13(1), New Delhi. I, Bhupinderjit Kumar, aged about 47 years, son of Late Shri Parkash Chand, presently posted as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Circle-18(1), New Delhi do solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- 1) That the final assessment order in the case of M/s New Delhi Television Limited, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-Ill, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2009-10 was passed U/S 144 read with section 144C(13) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 on 21.02.2011 by then Assessing Officer, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-13(1), New Delhi (now Circle 18(1), New Delhi), 2) That M/s New Delhi Television Limited, has filed appeal in ITA 1212/Del/2014 against the above assessment order. 3) That the cross objections against the above appeal were filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal on 17.11.2014 and the affidavit in support of the Cross Objections was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cross Objection is a jurisdictional issue and challenges the very validity of entertaining the Assessee s appeal by this Tribunal; secondly, the revenue cannot be precluded from raising this issue before this Tribunal even without cross objection; and lastly, reasons cited for not filling the appeal by the DCIT falls in the realm of reasonable cause and hence delay should be condoned. On merits of the issue raised in the Cross Objections a detail written submission has been fled before us. 4 On the other hand the Ld. Senior counsel, Shri C.S. Agarwal appearing on behalf of the assessee, strongly objected to the petition of the revenue seeking condonation of delay on the ground that, firstly , the condonation of delay is not accompanied by any valid affidavit as it has not been sworn before the oath Commissioner and therefore, inadmissible in law; and secondly, no sufficient cause has been mentioned for seeking condonation of delay, because the grounds raised by the DCIT are very vague that he was preoccupied in some sensitive matters pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court having substantial revenue implications, without specifying as to what was the nature of his in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the deponent has for good and sufficient reasons, extremely preoccupied with sensitive cases being dealt with by him and where there is pending of an ongoing litigation up to the Hon ble Supreme Court having substantial revenue implication, andhe was unable to move the cross objection within the time under section 253(4) of the Act. Though the deponent has verified that all the paras are true to the best of his knowledge and belief, however, the averments made in Para 7 do not contain any precise statement of fact or the exact nature of his involvement which can lead to a belief that deponent was unable to carry out his statutory obligation. Such a belief of statement of fact has to be specific and not on some vague assertion. Nowhere it has been mentioned or brought on record as to in which cases deponent was preoccupied before Hon ble Supreme Court and the nature of his involvement. Here the deponent himself has made an assertion that he had good and sufficient reason and proclaimed to be preoccupied without stating as to the nature of his engagement and his preoccupation. Another very important aspect of an affidavit to be admissible is the verification given on an aff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Oath on affidavit by whom to be administered In the case of any affidavit under this Code (a) Any Court or Magistrate, or (aa) any notary appointed under the Notaries Act, 1952 (53 of 1952); or) (b) Any officer or other person whom a High Court may appoint in this behalf, or (c) Any officer appointed by any other Court which the State Government has generally or specially empowered in this behalf, May administer the oath to the deponent. Thus, in the affidavit the aforementioned authorities has to administer the oath of the deponent by the person who is authorized to do so in. If the affidavit has been made without administering oath or the confirmation, the same cannot be reckoned as an affidavit in the eyes of law and hence inadmissible in any proceedings. 5.4 Thus, in our opinion the so-called affidavit dated 12.4.2016 cannot be held to a valid affidavit under the eyes of law and hence, the contents stated therein cannot be held to admissible or acceptable. We disapprove such perfunctory and casual approach in filling of affidavit in-consistent with the provisions of law especially from high level government authority. If the Ld.DCIT was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
