The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Exem v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation

bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2651 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-(Exem) … Appellant v/s Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation. … Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant. Mr.Mihir Naniwadekar for the respondent. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATED : 7TH MAY, 2014 P. C. : 1We have heard Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue and perused the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 23rd March, 2011. 2The assessment years in question are 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. The assessee is a Government of Maharashtra Corporation. Having found that the order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any error of law nor perversity, but rather applies a principle laid down by this Court in a decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Institute of Banking, reported in 264 ITR 110, we are of the opinion that the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. 3We have found as in this appeal in several other appeals that the Registry has not been careful at all. The Registry of this Court has, in the present appeal paper-book, allowed annexation of a certified true copy but not of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and impugned in this case. The original order passed by the Tribunal has only three pages, however, in the present case, we find that the Tribunal's order comprises of four pages. One of the Tribunal's order in some other appeal and not in relation to the subject assessee has been inserted. We do not see how such insertion is permissible and without any direction in that behalf from the senior officials in the Registry. This only means that the Registry has not been receiving and scrutinizing the appeal paper-book properly and completely. A cursory glance and hasty scrutiny of the paper book and its pages does not mean a scrutiny as contemplated by the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules is undertaken. Further we find that the Registry has added to the confusion by allowing appeals to be filed on the Original Side although the cause of action has occurred outside Mumbai. Reliance is placed on some practice note in that behalf. However, the practice note is of the year 2000. The Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960 have been amended thereafter. All appeals which are arising out of any proceedings under local or special law and lying to the High Court shall be filed on the Appellate Side provided the matters pertain to the district over which the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) has jurisdiction. We would, therefore, highly appreciate if the senior officials in the Registry and Registrar look into this aspect and remove the anomaly and confusion. Further, we would highly appreciate that, if in this case an explanation is sought from the concerned official as to how the appeal was allowed to be registered and numbered and placed before the Court though the order passed by the Tribunal and impugned in this appeal consists of only three pages. The certified copy of this order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and annexed in the paper book in the present appeal, however, has more than three pages. The order is dated 23[rd] March, 2011, however, page 3 of the order which has been annexed to the appeal paper book would show that the date thereon is 7[th] March, 2011. 4The revenue has also filed an appeal in order to challenge an order passed on 23[rd] March, 2011 and a copy of which has been handed over to Mr.Naniwadekar containing the same error. That may be in relation to the same assessment year, namely, 2004-2005 where the assessee is Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation. The appeal paper-book thus contains several errors and glaring mistakes. The Registry should seek an explanation from the concerned officials and make a report on or before 20[th] June, 2014. 2011. 4The revenue has also filed an appeal in order to challenge an order passed on 23[rd] March, 2011 and a copy of which has been handed over to Mr.Naniwadekar containing the same error. That may be in relation to the same assessment year, namely, 2004-2005 where the assessee is Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation. The appeal paper-book thus contains several errors and glaring mistakes. The Registry should seek an explanation from the concerned officials and make a report on or before 20[th] June, 2014. 5A copy of this order be placed before the Prothonotary & Senior Master/Registrar (O.S.) and the Additional Prothonotary & Senior Master (Judicial) of this Court. (G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)