M/S Herbicides India Ltd v. Income Tax Officer

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Civil Review No. 25 / 2015 M/S Herbicides India Ltd ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anant Kasliwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYASJudgment 26/04/2017 1.This review application is moved in restoration application which was dismissed vide order dated 25[th] February, 2015, which reads as under:- “1.The Income Tax Appeal was dismissed onthe ground that the paper book sets were not fileddespite grant of time on 31.01.2012. ThisRestoration Application has been filed with delay of805 days. We find that despite the dismissal ofthe Appeal for not filing the paper book on31.01.2012, the applicant had not filed paperbook, and has not cared to file the paper book,even with the present application. 2.The ground for condonation of delay of 805 daysfor not filing the paper book is that the appellantwas not aware of the dismissal of the appeal. 3.On 31.01.2012, the Court passed the order that“let the paper book set be filed within a period offifteen days, failing which the appeal shall standdismissed automatically without further referenceto the Bench”. The order shows that the counsel for the appellant was fully aware of the orderdated 31.01.2012 and its consequences. It isthus, difficult to believe that he was not aware ofthe consequential dismissal of the appeal in lastthree years. 4.We do not find any good ground to condone thedelay of 805 days in filing the restorationapplication. 5.The Restoration Application is thus, dismissed. 2.It will not be appropriate to restore the matter. It was alsocontended that the subsequent paper book is dispensed with byCo-ordinate Bench. In our considered opinion, this contentionought to have been raised before the bench where the mattercame up for restoration. Hence, it will not be appropriate to allowthis review. However, paper book was submitted by the lawyerbefore the order was passed. 3.In that view of the matter, the review application deserves tobe rejected and the same is dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. A.Sharma/103