9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1936X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee has sought recall of the tribunal order dated 01.02.2016 passed by Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal , C-Bench Mumbai , (hereinafter called the tribunal ) for the assessment year 2007-08 in ITA no. 1994/Mum/2013. 2. This M.A. has been filed by the assessee seeking recall of the order of the tribunal in ITA no. 1994/Mum/2013 dated 01-02-2016 . The learned counsel for the assessee pressed only one ground before the Bench that the tribunal order dated 01-02-2016 was passed beyond period of 90 days from the date of hearing and hence the same needed to be recalled for conducting fresh hearings before the Regular Bench in view of Rule 34(5) of the Income-tax(Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 r.w.s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act ).The Ld. Counsel brought to the notice of bench that hearing in this case in ITA no. 1994/Mum/2013 for AY 2007-08 was concluded on 29.10.2015 while the order was pronounced on 01.02.2016 and hence pronouncement was beyond the period of 90 days. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant v. ACIT [2009] 317 ITR 433 (Bom), Hon ble Bombay Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicial precedence. 5. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative could not dispute the case law mentioned hereinabove, however he pleaded that there is no mistake apparent from record, for which the order is to be recalled. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We find that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant (supra) has observed and directed as under: 11. Having said so, the inordinate unexplained delay in pronouncement of the impugned judgment has also rendered it vulnerable. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to various judgments of the Apex Court as well as of this Court and various other High Courts to show that only on the ground of delay in rendering the judgment for period ranging from four months to 10 months, judgments were held to be bad in law and set aside. It has been held time and again that justice should not only be done but should appear to have been done and that justice delayed is justice denied. Justice withheld is even worse than that. The Apex Court in the case of Madhav Hayawadar Rao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra [1978] 3 SCC 544 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... down by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai (supra) and to issue appropriate administrative directions to all the Benches of the Tribunal in that behalf We hope and trust that suitable guidelines shall be framed and issued by the President of the Appellate Tribunal within shortest reasonable time and followed strictly by all the Benches of the Tribunal. In the meanwhile, all the revisional and appellate authorities under the Income-tax Act are directed to decide matters heard by them within a period of three months from the date case is closed for judgment 7. From the above, we find that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case referred above has held that unexplained delay in pronouncement of the order renders it vulnerable. It was held that such judgments were bad in law and were to be set aside. It was expounded that justice should not only be done, but should appear to have been done and that justice delayed is justice denied. The Hon'ble High Court has also referred to Hon'ble Apex Court decision where serious note was taken of the prejudice caused to the litigant due to delay in delivery or pronouncement of the judgment for the reasons not attrib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uary, 2016 passed under Section 254(1) of the Act was passed beyond the period of 90 days from the date of conclusion of its hearing on 22nd September, 2015. However, it records that administrative clearance had been taken to pass such an order beyond the period of 90 days. We are at a loss to understand what is meant by 'administrative clearance' and the basis for the same. Besides when, how and from whom the administrative clearance was received, are all questions still at large. Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel who appears for all the respondents, including the Registry of the Tribunal is unable to shed any light on the same. Moreover, we are unable to comprehend the meaning of 'Administrative clearance' in the face of Rule 34 (5)(c) read with Rule 34(8) of the Tribunal Rules. It is clear that the above provisions mandate the Tribunal to pronounce its order at the very latest on or before the 90th day, after the conclusion of the hearing. In fact, this Court in Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant (supra) after referring to various decisions of the Apex Court directed the President of the Tribunal to frame guidelines to prevent delay in delivery of orders/judgments. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
