The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Geoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO.3272 OF 2005ININCOME TAX APPEAL LODG. NO.1280 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income Tax. ..Appellant...Respondent. Vs. M/s. Geoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. Mr. B.M.Chatterji, Ms. P.P. Bhosale, Mr.A.D.Kango & P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.Rajesh Shah for the Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ.DATED : 6TH FEBRUARY,2008. PC :1. There is a delay of 205 days in preferring theappeal. We have noted in this matter that substantialdelay was occasioned as the papers had been sent to theMinistry of Law for drafting the appeal memo. There isnow a change in the procedure of drafting the appeals.As the delay in the instant case was occasioned in the Law Ministry and considering the cause shown delay condoned. Office to register the appeal. 2. Another important aspect that has come to our noticeis that a large number of appeals are not filed in timeon account of non availability of the court fee papers.Argument of revenue is that there are no budgetaryallotment made. This has resulted in this court beingover burdened with matters, as practically every appealis being filed with a motion for condonation of delay for one cause or another. Between the months of Julyand December this bench has disposed of about 1580motions for condonation of delay which were of the year2006. This time could have been more gainfully spent indeciding the pending appeals. The pendency istherefore, created by the failure of the department tofile appeal in time. During the said period about 1500appeals were also disposed off. Office has now placedfigures which show that as of 5.12.2007 another 2702 motions have been filed and correspondingly the same number of Income Tax Appeals. 3. The court fees are being paid in terms of the courtfees as charged by the State enactment. Our attentionis invited to the provisions of the Central Excise Act.By an Amendment Act Parliament had introduced Section 35and provided fixed court fee. We see no reason if it iswithin the competence of Parliament as to why theMinistry of Finance or the Ministry of Law should nottake remedial steps as in the case of Central ExciseAct.4. These observations are necessitated considering thefact that we find that nearly 2500 appeals are filedbefore this court with 2500-motions for condonation ofdelay practically every year. In these circumstances,it ought to be in the interest of all stake holders inin the judicial process to remedy the situation. This results in increasing the work load of this court byanother 2500 matters every year. We have for thepresent imposed no costs or minimum costs.5. Office is directed to send a copy of this order tothe Secretary, Law and the Secretary Finance, Govt. ofIndia. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)