In R/Special Civil Application v. Devuben @ Jamnaben Jivrajbhai Movaliaya

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 242 of 2019 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14244 of 2017 ==========================================================INCOME TAX OFFICER VersusDEVUBEN @ JAMNABEN JIVRAJBHAI MOVALIAYA ========================================================== Appearance: M R BHATT & CO.(5953) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8MR TUSHAR L SHETH(3920) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8SERVED BY RPAD (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 10,9========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA Date : 01/07/2022 ORAL ORDER This Court allowed Special Civil Application No. 14244 of2017 filed by the petitioner - assesse by order dated12.12.2017, whereby the respondent – Income Tax authoritieswere directed to refund the wrongly deducted amount of Rs.68,672/- to each of the petitioners. The Income Tax authoritieswere directed to deposit the said amount before the ReferenceCourt and to disburse the amount. 2.Against the said judgment and order, the Income Taxdepartment preferred a Review Application. The ReviewApplication was dismissed for want of prosecution as per orderdated 17.07.2018. The applicant - appellant filed RestorationApplication. In filing the Restoration Application, delay of 164days has taken place. Therefore the present application. 3.Heard learned advocate Mr. Karan Singhania for M. R.Bhatt & Co. for the applicant and learned advocate Mr. TusharSheth for the respondent No. 1 to 8. 4.It appears that, by virtue of order dated 17.07.2018, theMiscellaneous Civil Application was dismissed for want ofprosecution. Thereafter, delay in filing Restoration Applicationwas sought to be explained by the applicant – Departmentstating that the aforesaid order dated 17.07.2018 came to thenotice only when it was served upon the applicant No. 1 by theCourt of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh. It wassubmitted that thereafter the Restoration Application was filedin which they were heard. It was submitted that the delay wasdue to oversight and there was no deliberate omission. 5.In the totality of facts delay to the extent of 164 days issaid to be properly explained. Sufficient cause is made out forcondoning the delay of 164 days in preferring RestorationApplication. Delay is condoned. Rule is made absolute. SHRIJIT PILLAI (N.V.ANJARIA, J)