| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 3076 2004 SLD 3076 (2004) 271 ITR 171 |
Delhi High Court
IT APPEAL No. 65 OF 2000 NOVEMBER 27, 2003
D.K., JAIN AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
IT APPEAL No. 65 OF 2000 NOVEMBER 27, 2003
D.K., JAIN AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Commissioner of IncomE tax
v.
Shankarlal Ved Prakash HUF
Law:
Section:
Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - High Court, appeal to - Revenue filed instant application for condonation of delay of about 400 days in filing review application against an order of High Court on ground that delay in filing review application was on account of taking consultation with multiple authorities - Whether there was apparent lethargy on part of concerned authority in dealing with instant case, and no cause, much less a sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay in filing review application - Held, yes HELD It was evident from the list of dates and events submitted along with the instant application that in the first instance, the office of the Chief Commissioner took almost two months in forwarding the file to the CBDT for its opinion. Mercifully, the Board took more than three months in obtaining the opinion of the Ministry of Law. What happened thereafter was again a true reflection of the file pushing and passing on the buck ethos. To say the least, the file had been dealt with in a most casual and cavalier manner. [Para 5] Having regard to the fact that the State represents collective cause of the community, certain amount of latitude to it is permissible but in a case of apparent lethargy, like the instant one, it cannot be permitted to be used as a shield for inaction. On facts in hand, no cause, much less a sufficient cause had been made out for condonation of delay in filing the review application, hence, the instant application was to be dismissed. Consequently, the review was also dismissed as barred by limitation. [Para 6] CASES REFERRED TO State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani AIR 1996 SC 1623 [Para 4] and Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) [Para 4]. R.C. Pandey for the Appellant. C.S. Aggarwal, Salil Aggarwal and Prakash Kumar for the Respondent. ORDER 1. This is an application by the Revenue under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, r/w section 151 CPC, seeking condonation of delay of "about 12 months" in filing the review application against the order passed by this Court on 10th April, 2001, in ITA No. 1/2000. By the impugned order,…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492