9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court or the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement even if not bought to the notice of the tribunal, results in the order of the tribunal being liable for rectification upon filing of an application under section 254(2) for containing mistake apparent from the record. Admittedly, in this case, the impugned common tribunal orders are not in accordance with the above two jurisdictional High Court's decision which clearly mandate that the order of the tribunal should be pronounced within a period of three months of the hearing of the appeal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rule 34(5) as mentioned hereinabove also provides the same. Hence, in accordance with the ratio of the above Hon' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. Counsel of the assessee has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant v. Asstt. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 433/176 Taxman 260, wherein inordinate delay in pronouncement of order was adversely commented upon. 3. Furthermore, the ld. Counsel pointed out that subsequent to the above decision, the ITAT Rules provide vide Rule 34(5) provide for a time limit of three months in passing the order. 4. Hence, in view of the above, the ld. Counsel pleaded that the above order by the Tribunal should be recalled due to inordinate delay and heard afresh in accordance with the above judicial precedence. 5. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative could not disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Code of Civil Procedure in the matter of time frame in delivery of judgment, observed as under : Nevertheless, we think that an unreasonable delay between hearing of arguments and delivery of a judgment, unless explained by exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, is highly undesirable even when written arguments are submitted. It is not unlikely that some points which the litigant considers important may have escaped notice. But, what is more important is that litigants must have complete confidence in the results of litigation. This confidence tends to be shaken if there is excessive delay between hearing of arguments and delivery of judgments. Justice, as we have often observed, must not only be done but must manifestly app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice board. 9. Furthermore, we note that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Otters Club v. DIT (E), in Writ Petition No. 2889 of 2016 vide order dated 12.01.2017 has held that the tribunal cannot pass the order beyond three months of the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal. The facts in the case and the decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in brief are as under: The Tribunal passed an order dated 3rd February, 2016 beyond a period of 90 days after the hearing of the appeal was concluded on 22nd September, 2015. The assessee claimed that this was in breach of Rule 34(5)(c) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 (Tribunal Rules) as also of the binding decision of this C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of the Apex Court directed the President of the Tribunal to frame guidelines to prevent delay in delivery of orders/judgments. It also directed all the revisional and appellate authorities (including Tribunal) under the Act to decide the matters heard by them within a period of three months from the date of the conclusion of the hearing. This is further compounded by the fact that the submission of the petitioner in respect of the entire issue being covered by orders of coordinate benches was according to the petitioner, lost sight of while passing the order dated 3rd February, 2016. (ii) In the above view, the impugned order rejecting rectification application has not considered the aforesaid Rules and the binding decisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
