The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2,Mumbai v. Raymond Ltd

srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO.675 OF 2012IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.189 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-2,Mumbai ...Appellant Versus Raymond Ltd. ...Respondent Mr.Vimal Gupta for appellant. Mr.Percy J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate with Mr.Mohan Salian, Ms.Vaijayanta Shete and Mr.Jainuddin Khan i/b. Gagrats for respondents. CORAM: DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD & M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. March 20, 2012. P.C. 1.The Motion is for condoning a delay of 416 days and for extension of time for the removal of office objections as directed in an order dated 14 January 2010. 2.The order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was passed on 22 March 2007. The delay in filing the appeal before this Court was condoned by an order dated 17 April 2008 passed by the Division bench in a motion for condonation. There were certain office objections, the primary objection being that the appeal was barred by limitation. That objection did not survive in view of the delay being condoned. There were certain other objections primarily of a ministerial nature such as the replacement of certain exhibits with typed copies and the correction of the second set. On 10 June 1999 an extension of time for removal of office objections was granted by four weeks failing which it was stated that the appeal would stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. On 8 July 2009 time was extended by two weeks. On 14 January 2010 in a motion which was taken out, the appeal which would have been dismissed for want of removal of office objections was restored and time for removal of office objections was extended by a period of one week. The office objections were, it is common ground, removed on 3 February 2010 and in the mean time the appeal stood dismissed since the objections were not removed within a period of one week. This appeal has been listed with a batch of nearly twelve other appeals in which the main judgment of the Tribunal is dated 22 March 2007 to which the present appeal relates and it has been followed for other Assessment Years in respect of certain common issues. There is a delay in removing the office objections. Instead of removing the office objections within one week from the date of the order dated 14 January 2010, the office objections were actually removed on 3 February 2010. In paragraph 3 of the motion it has been stated that the file was not immediately available for removal of office objections within a stipulated period of one week and as soon as the file was made available, all objections were removed on 3 February 2010. The correctness of this statement of fact is not denied on affidavit. There is a delay of 416 days in taking out the Motion which has been occasioned as a result of the fact that the appeal continued to remain pending on the file and appeared on board on diverse dates. Having regard to the fact that recurring questions are involved in a batch of appeals and bearing in mind the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Ltd.[1]we are of the view that the delay should be condoned and the appeal should be restored to file. Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has placed on record a copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Office ofChief Post Master General Vs.Living Media India Ltd.[2]The Supreme Court has emphasised that unless the department has a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was a bona fide effort, a usual explanation to the effect that the file was kept pending for several months or years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process should not be readily accepted. In the present case it cannot be said that the department has been guilty of inaction or negligence. The Department has taken necessary steps to remove the office objections, though that happened to fall beyond the period of one week which was granted by the Court. Delay in filing the appeal has already been condoned. Hence, we are of the view that this Motion should be allowed subject to the imposition of costs. We make the Motion absolute in terms of prayer clauses (A) and (B). The costs quantified at Rs.7500/- (Rupees seven 1. (2011) 334 ITR 269 2. Civil Appeal Nos.2474-2475 of 2012 decided on 24 February 2012. thousand five hundred only) shall be paid within a period of four weeks from today failing which the Revenue shall lose the benefit derived from the order passed in appeal. Time for removal of office objections would stand extended by a further period of four weeks from the date of the expiry of the time granted by the order dated 14 January 2010. As already noted, the office objections have been removed. The motion is accordingly disposed. (DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.) (M.S.SANKLECHA, J.)