The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Coca Cola India Pvt.ltd

kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1000 OF 2011 ININCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6185 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax. ..Appellant -Versus- Coca Cola India Pvt.Ltd....Respondent ........... Mr.Vimal Gupta, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Vipul Arun Bajpayee, for the Appellant/ Revenue. Mr.S.E.Dastur, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.R.Murlidharan, Mr.Arun Sivach and Mr.Jay Sanklecha i/by Amarchand & Mangaldas & S.A. Shroff & Company, for the Respondent/ Assessee. ........... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARIAND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE :- 31[st] July, 2014 P.C.: 1We have heard Mr.Vimal Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of this Notice of Motion seeking condonation of delay in not removing of the office objections and praying for restoration of the Appeal which was dismissed on that ground. 2Our attention has been invited to paragraph 5 of the affidavit in support of this Notice of Motion and prior thereto paragraph 2. It is submitted that in this case the Revenue cannot be totally faulted and for being negligent, callous or coming out with an explanation which is not satisfactory and reasonable. It has been stated as to how the delay occurred and because of certain miscommunication between the Court Clerk and the Officer. In such circumstances Mr.Gupta would submit that the delay deserves to be condoned. 3On the other hand, our attention has been invited by Mr.Dastur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Assessee, to the affidavit in reply and the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court. Mr.Dastur submits that the delay in this case has not been cogently and satisfactorily explained. If that is not so, then, this Court should not condone the delay merely because the Revenue is before it. The Government is not a special litigant and cannot claim exemption from applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963, is thus the submission. 4After having heard the learned Senior Counsel for both sides and perusing with their assistance the Notice of Motion, Affidavit in support, so also, the affidavit in reply, we are of the opinion that bearing in mind the explanation given in paragraphs 2 and 5 which cannot be termed as false or unreasonable that we condone the delay in larger public interest. We are of the opinion that in this case the principles laid down in several judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court which are relied upon by the Assessee cannot be applied straightaway because the conduct of the Revenue in at least this case cannot be said to be exhibiting total lack of care or utter negligence. The conduct cannot be termed as malafide. In such circumstances the explanation can be termed as satisfactory and reasonable. The delay, therefore, deserves to be condoned. However, we condone the same on the condition that the Revenue pays the costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) and that to be paid to the Bombay High Court Law Library. Let this cost be paid within a period of FOUR WEEKS from today. The objections be removed within a period of three weeks from today. 5The Notice of Motion is, accordingly, disposed of. (B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)