Nmw/504/2010 Of Jairaj Kantilal Sonawala And 2 Ors v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax City-2, Thane And Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.504 OF 2010INREVIEW PETITION (LOD) NO.60 OF 2010IN WRIT PETITIO0N NO.919 OF 2006 Jairaj Kantilal Sonwala & Ors. ..Petitioners. V/s. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Charanjeet Chandrapal for petitioners.None for respondents. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. P.C. :- DATED : 7TH FEBRUARY, 2011 1.Matter not on board. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, Notice of Motion is taken taken up for admission. 2.By this Notice of Motion, the petitioners are seeking condonation of delay of more than four years in filing the Review Petition (Lod) No.60 of 2010. The Review Petition was filed on 13/09/2010 seeking review of the order passed by this Court on 24/07/2006 dismissing Writ Petition No.919 of 2006. The said Writ Petition was filed to challenge the order of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) dated 13/04/2005 whereby the CCIT had declined to waive interest levied under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3.It is contended that in view of the financial hardship, the Review Petition could not be filed within a reasonable time. It is further contended that the decision of this Court dated 24/07/2006 is erroneous and per in curiam being contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. V/s. Ranchi Club Ltd. reported in (2001) 247 I.T.R. 209 and therefore, in the interest of justice the delay be condoned. 4.Perusal of the order passed by this Court on 24/07/2006 shows that the said order has been passed after considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ranchi Club Ltd. Even if the petitioners are right in their contention that the decision of this Court is erroneous, that cannot be a ground for condoning the delay of more than four years. Similarly, the fact that there was financial difficulty cannot be a ground to condone the delay of more than four years. Therefore, in the absence of any valid explanation given for condoning the delay of more than four years in filing the Review Petition, we see no reason to condone the delay of more than four years. Accordingly, Notice of Motion is dismissed with no order as to costs. (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)